BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 27 November (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Constitutional Reform

Gemma Doyle: What the Government’s political and constitutional reform priorities are for the remainder of this Parliament.

Nicholas Clegg: The Government have already introduced fixed-term Parliaments, a significant constitutional change, and given people a say on the voting system for this House, as well as overseeing significant transfers of power to both Scotland and Wales. We also have radical measures in train to shift power from the centre to local decision makers, including the recently enacted Local Government Finance Act 2012 and the second wave of city deals, which will accelerate the pace of decentralisation as well as unlocking new and innovative ways to drive growth. Work also continues on party funding, recall and lobbying reform.

Gemma Doyle: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer, but he has horse-traded with his coalition partner on Lords reform, electoral registration, our electoral system, and boundary changes. Does he not agree that the country deserves a better collection of policies than those that simply serve an individual party’s needs?

Nicholas Clegg: That is a slightly curious allegation coming from a member of a party that had a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the alternative vote yet barely lifted a finger to campaign for it when it was possible to do so, and that has had a manifesto commitment for an elected House of Lords for years but has done even less to make that a reality. Perhaps the hon. Lady should practise what she preaches.

Andrew Turner: Two weeks ago, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and said that political and constitutional reforms were worth while only when there was a public appetite for them. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think there is a public appetite for any of the proposals he has just mentioned?

Nicholas Clegg: Clearly, the priority for all of us is to repair, rescue and reform the damaged British economy—the legacy left to us by Labour—but I have always been of the view that that does not mean that the Government cannot do more than two things at once. Those things could include mayoral elections, police and crime commissioner elections—which I know are close to the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s party—or other political reform enthusiasms shared by my party. Those are all things that we have tried to advance over the past two and a half years.

Margaret Ritchie: In the light of the Prime Minister’s visit to Northern Ireland today in advance of negotiations in Brussels and other possible announcements, and of the recent report on tax arrangements in Wales, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what discussions have taken place, or will take place, with the Northern Ireland Executive on the further devolution of powers to the Executive?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Lady knows, the proposals in Wales have been put forward on the back of the report published by the Silk commission this week, which advocates further tax devolution to Wales. We have said that we will look closely at those proposals. She will also be well aware that there is a long-standing debate in Northern Ireland about the freedom to set corporation tax rates, which would involve a different arrangement from the one that we have now. We have undertaken to look at that very carefully indeed, and there has been a succession of discussions and ministerial meetings on the matter. We will arrive at a definitive conclusion soon enough.

Robert Smith: One item on the Deputy Prime Minister’s list of priorities was party funding. Is it not crucial, in the light of the lessons that we can learn from the American presidential election, that the parties in this country should come together and agree on a sensible measure of party funding, so that we can have a balanced electoral system that means all the people getting involved in the elections?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that anybody, on either side of the House, would want to see our politics being hollowed out by big money as has clearly happened in the United States. That is why cross-party talks are going on at the moment, although agreement has not yet been reached. We are all familiar with the difficulties involved. It will require a bit of political will and a bit of political courage to reach cross-party agreement, but I hope that we will be able to do that as soon as possible.

Harriet Harman: I note the absence of the elections for police and crime commissioners from the Deputy Prime Minister’s list of his Government’s constitutional reforms. Those elections ended up costing £25 million more because he did not want them to be held on the same day as the May council elections next year. Will he admit that, in order to try to give the Lib Dems a better chance next May, he has wasted an extra £25 million of public money?

Nicholas Clegg: I know the right hon. and learned Lady is feeling sore that so many Labour has-been politicians did not get elected. [Interruption.] I know it was not a good day for Deputy Prime Ministers, past or present, and I admit that. Honestly, she knows as well as I do that there was a mayoral contest and Westminster by-elections as well as local by-elections all on the same day. Is she now going to start blaming the November weather for the poor showing of her party at the police and crime commissioner elections? That is beneath her.

Harriet Harman: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to last Thursday’s results because on the showing of his party in the Corby by-election, it will need more than a change of date to save his party’s fortunes. Will he not admit that no one wanted these police and crime commissioner elections, whatever the weather, that they were a complete shambles and that the money should have been spent on front-line policing instead?

Nicholas Clegg: If the right hon. and learned Lady dislikes the PCC elections so much, why did her party put up candidates across the country? [Interruption.] I hear “She had to” from a sedentary position, but no one forced her to put up as candidates the recycled Labour ex-Ministers who then failed to get elected. No one obliged her to do that. I really think the Labour party has to get out of this habit of criticising things that are quite close to its own proposals. As I understand it, the Labour party’s position is for directly elected members of the police authority—not a million miles away from the police and crime commissioners. As it happens, that was not my or my party’s policy, but it was a contest that we all entered in good faith. I am only sorry that it did not turn out as the right hon. and learned Lady had rather hoped.

Recall of Members

Lorely Burt: What progress he has made on introducing a process of recall for hon. Members found guilty of serious wrongdoing.

Claire Perry: What progress he has made on introducing a process of recall for hon. Members found guilty of serious wrongdoing.

Nicholas Clegg: Last year, the Government published their draft Bill on the recall of MPs for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, whose report was published in June this year. The Government submitted an interim response confirming that we remain committed to establishing a recall mechanism that is robust, transparent and fair. We are now taking proper time to reflect on the Committee’s recommendations.

Lorely Burt: For some, life in politics can be a bit like a jungle, and a popular vote may help to decide whether or not someone should stay. When a Member of this House is found guilty of serious wrongdoing and does not walk away themselves, should not a popular vote by their constituents provide a chance to “get them out of there”?

Nicholas Clegg: Obviously, the devil is in the detail, and the issue is how we as a House define what serious wrongdoing is. I never thought that disappearing to a jungle on the other side of the planet would be one of the things we would have to grapple with on this recall issue. I very much hope to make progress, and we are certainly working actively in government to achieve it. It was a manifesto commitment of all the main parties in this Parliament to introduce a recall mechanism, but to do that we need to arrive at a common understanding of what constitutes serious wrongdoing and what does not.

Claire Perry: If I may press the Deputy Prime Minister a little further, does his reply not suggest that it is up to Parliament to define serious wrongdoing, which might give the impression to constituents that it is a case of the poacher turning gamekeeper? Surely it should be up to the majority of our constituents, perhaps through some sort of referendum, to decide what constitutes wrongdoing. Whether it be crossing the Floor, disappearing and not helping constituents, being found guilty of fraud or whatever, it is surely our constituents’ job to determine that.

Nicholas Clegg: We have said that there is a sort of double trigger. First, whether in law or otherwise, we need some kind of approximate understanding of what constitutes serious wrongdoing. I do not think anyone would want this recall mechanism to be triggered for frivolous reasons or for partisan point scoring. The second trigger is that 10% of constituents sign a petition calling for a by-election. It is that basic design that we are still working towards.

Stephen McCabe: Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that reneging on a solemn election pledge is serious wrongdoing?

Nicholas Clegg: It is almost as serious as destroying the British economy, which is of course what the Labour party did when it was in office.

David Hanson: Does the Deputy Prime Minister have any plans to extend recall to other posts such as police and crime commissioners? In north Wales, for example, an independent elected last Thursday subsequently turned out to be a member of the Liberal Democrat party. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that that would constitute grounds for recall?

Nicholas Clegg: I know the right hon. Gentleman thinks otherwise, but being a member of the Liberal Democrats is not yet a crime. By the way—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. This is Question Time; Members cannot divide the House now. There is no opportunity for that.

Nicholas Clegg: This is Labour illiberalism pushed to new extremes—and at least, by the way, it was not necessary for Greenpeace to film that candidate secretly before we knew what his views were, which seems to have been the case elsewhere.
	We believe that the principle of recall should be extended—for instance, we should like it to be extended to the European Parliament—but, as I have already said in answer to earlier questions, we must first get the mechanisms and the definitions in the Bill right.

Individual Electoral Registration

Tom Blenkinsop: What his policy is on individual electoral registration; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Ruane: What his policy is on individual electoral registration; and if he will make a statement.

Chloe Smith: The Government are fully committed to delivering individual electoral registration. In the coalition agreement we promised to speed up its implementation to improve the integrity of the electoral register, and that remains the Government’s policy.

Tom Blenkinsop: Given how critical the Deputy Prime Minister said the Bill on individual registration was, why has it now disappeared?

Chloe Smith: It has not disappeared, but, as you know, Mr. Speaker, by convention we in this House do not comment on the workings of the other place.

Chris Ruane: Before I ask my question, may I just say that Labour did not do enough to increase electoral registration during our 13 years in power?
	May I ask the Minister, in the spirit of cross-party co-operation, what we can do together—as Members of Parliament, as political parties and as democrats—to put the 6 million unregistered voters on to the register and to improve democracy?

Chloe Smith: I truly welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think it is of concern to everyone in the House that, for example, 36% of people—according to a recent Electoral Commission survey—believe that electoral fraud is a problem. We are introducing safeguards to ensure that the maximum number of people can be individually registered. That includes the use of techniques such as data-matching, phasing in the transition over two years, a write-out to all electors in 2014, and a programme of work to maximise registration among previously under-represented groups.

James Gray: One of the lowest rates of electoral registration is found where it should perhaps be the highest, namely among our armed services. What can individual voter registration do to help to increase the number of soldiers, sailors and airmen who are registered to vote?

Chloe Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Much needs to be done to make it easier for those people to register and to place their votes. As I have said, we are undertaking a comprehensive programme of reforms through individual electoral registration. We are also interested in looking into methods such as online registration, which might help the community whom my hon. Friend holds so dear.

Wayne David: The Government told us that the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which would introduce individual electoral registration, was a priority and must be introduced as quickly as possible, but we have now been told that the Conservatives are delaying it in the other place. What is the reason for that delay? Has it anything to do with parliamentary boundaries? Yes or no?

Chloe Smith: Again, Mr. Speaker, you would no doubt remind me not to discuss the workings of the other place here. I have every confidence that the hon. Gentleman can read for himself the speeches of my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde, who made it clear what that place must do with potentially inadmissible amendments. I also think it is clear that the programme designed by the last Government—a voluntary version of individual electoral registration—would have led to confusion and significant extra cost, and I therefore do not think it right for Opposition Members to lecture us about such matters.

Royal Succession

Philip Hollobone: What progress he has made on changing the law on succession to the throne.

Nicholas Clegg: Discussions with the other Commonwealth realms are ongoing, but legislation can be presented only when all the necessary arrangements are in place in all 16 Commonwealth nations.

Philip Hollobone: There will be much rejoicing on the streets of the Kettering constituency if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are blessed with a baby girl and she succeeds to the throne even if she has a baby brother. When does the Deputy Prime Minister expect legislation to be presented to us, and what is the legislative timetable likely to be in those other Commonwealth realms?

Nicholas Clegg: I am sure all of us would share the joy of the constituents of Kettering if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a baby girl—or, indeed, a baby boy. If it were a baby girl, the key thing to remember would be that the change to the rule of male primogeniture came into effect from the point of the Perth conference last year, so even if we had not secured all the necessary legislative changes in all the realms, we would none the less be able to proceed on the basis that the outdated rule of male primogeniture no longer prevails. A de facto change has already been introduced pending the legal changes that now need to be made.

Keith Vaz: It is now more than a year since the Perth agreement, and I appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister has put a lot of work into this. It is now in the hands of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, however, so will the Deputy Prime Minister consider visiting New Zealand—

Chris Ruane: And stay there!

Keith Vaz: Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider visiting New Zealand to try to speed up this process, because it is taking a long time and there is all-party agreement that it should be concluded as soon as possible?

Nicholas Clegg: One Member of this House on the other side of the planet is, I think, enough. I do not intend to take a long voyage myself, although I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind suggestion. Thankfully, we do not need to travel around the globe to communicate with each other these days. We have other means by which we can liaise with colleagues and friends in the New Zealand Government—and indeed, with the other realms. As I have said before, I am as impatient as the right hon. Gentleman to see the end of the outdated and discriminatory rule of male primogeniture and also the bar on the monarch or the successor to the throne marrying a Roman Catholic. I am as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman is to see those rules updated and modernised. It just takes a bit of time and a little bit of patience to make sure that all the realms are properly aligned, as they need to be to make this change happen.

Peter Tapsell: Will the Deputy Prime Minister—and the Prime Minister of New Zealand—bear in mind that, but for our law of male primogeniture, the German Kaiser would also have become King of England, which would have produced almost as interesting a coalition as the present one?

Nicholas Clegg: We always rely on my right hon. Friend for such erudition and grasp of history, which he possesses but unfortunately I do not. I am grateful to him for pointing that historical quirk out to us, but I hope he will agree that that is not reason enough not to modernise the rules of succession and bring them into line with the 21st century.

Mr Speaker: We can so rely on the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell), which is one of the reasons why I particularly enjoy calling him.

Topical Questions

Jason McCartney: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Nicholas Clegg: As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on a full range of Government policy and initiatives, and within the Government I take special responsibility for our programme of political and constitutional reform.

Jason McCartney: What are the Government doing to promote access to public office for people with mental health problems? With that in mind, will the
	Deputy Prime Minister join me and other Members in growing a moustache for Movember, which is not only raising funds for the prostate cancer charity, but raising important issues about men’s health, including mental illness?

Nicholas Clegg: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and I would be very happy to pay him to take his moustache off as soon as he wishes to do so. [Interruption.] Well, these are the times of austerity, so we will have to be modest.
	On the first point, I think there has been a real sea change in how we debate and talk about mental health not only in society but, as we have movingly seen recently, in this House. The taboo has been broken and politicians now speak about mental health problems, which afflict one in four families in this country. That is a very healthy development, and we are seeking to reflect it in legislation by removing the bar on those with mental health problems being in office and remaining as Members of this House.

Sadiq Khan: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the House of Lords will tomorrow consider Government plans to allow Ministers the right to have civil actions against them held in secret, thus depriving claimants the chance to see the evidence. Can he explain to the House why he and the Conservative party are right on this, and the Cross-Bencher Lord David Pannick QC, the Labour party, the Lib Dem peer and former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Ken Macdonald, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Liberty, Reprieve, Justice, the Lords Constitution Committee and other legal experts are so utterly wrong?

Nicholas Clegg: This is a very important issue and I am looking forward to the Labour party’s revealing what it believes on this, as on so many other issues. If the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the Bill were accurate, I would agree with him. Of course I would; no one wants to see evidence and matters heard in open court decanted into closed material proceedings. Let me make it clear that the Government’s view—it is certainly mine, as I would find this unacceptable otherwise—is that the provision will apply only to those cases where at the moment the evidence is not heard at all. It is not a question of a choice, with evidence held in open court being moved into closed court, as nothing will be heard—[ Interruption. ] The judge decides on how the procedure is conducted.
	The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I want to pick up on that if I may. As he knows very well, the Committee has tabled an extensive range of amendments to improve the Bill. I am very sympathetic to a lot of what the Committee says, and the Government are considering its amendments with an open and, in many respects, sympathetic mind. I hope that we will be able to amend the Bill to allay those concerns in line with many of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Dan Rogerson: In the interests of fairness, my right hon. Friend is making the case for higher property taxes above a certain
	threshold. Will he also consider the issue of second, third and fourth homes that might fall below any such threshold?

Nicholas Clegg: On taxational levies on higher value properties, it is no secret that there is a difference of opinion in the coalition Government. There is no point pretending otherwise. My view is that a police officer seeing 20% cuts in the policing budget, a teacher whose pay has been frozen or someone whose benefits are being reduced would find it very difficult to understand why we are not asking people in large multi-million pound homes to make an additional contribution as we have to tighten our belts further. I do not think that most ordinary people in this country think that it is fair that a family living in a family home, working hard to provide for themselves, has to pay the same council tax as an oligarch living in a £5 million mansion. That is why we will continue to make the case for a fairer approach to taxation. As we tighten our belts, as I have said on numerous occasions, we should start at the top and work down, rather than the other way around.

Mr Speaker: We have a lot to get through, so may we have short questions and short answers, please?

Mary Glindon: The Deputy Prime Minister will at least be pleased that last Thursday his party won the by-election in Wallsend, even though the turn-out was low. As the public largely boycotted the police and crime commissioner elections, which cost £100 million, does he think that it would have been better for his party’s fortunes if that money had been spent on the 3,000 front-line police he promised in his election manifesto?

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful for a carbon-copy question of one asked earlier. I would suggest a little liaison—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Lady is waving a piece of paper provided to her by her Whips, but I suggest that she cross-checks against the questions asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) from her Front Bench. As I said, there were PCC elections, a mayoral election, local by-elections and Westminster parliamentary by-elections. There will be more Westminster parliamentary by-elections in a couple of weeks’ time. Is she really suggesting that when the clocks change we should stop elections? I do not think that she is, and that would not be a realistic way of proceeding.

Simon Hart: The Deputy Prime Minister will know that we have dozens of different deposits for elections, ranging from £500 to £5,000. In this post-PCC world, would now not be a good time to review that, as some of them have not been looked at for about 30 years?

Nicholas Clegg: That is not something that we have considered, but I am more than happy to ask officials to provide information about whether there is something erratic or illogical about the levels of deposit in different electoral contests.

Lindsay Roy: What reaction has the Deputy Prime Minister had from the Secretary of State for Scotland on his reported plans to
	evict the Scotland Office from Dover house, and why would the Deputy Prime Minister’s small Department apparently want to move there?

Nicholas Clegg: I am not aware of any plans to evict the Secretary of State from his office.

John Stevenson: There is much discussion about constitutional reform, especially in Scotland and Wales. However, there is little discussion of arrangements in England, particularly with regard to local government. Lord Heseltine’s recent report recommends that we should move away from two-tier local government to unitary authorities, which would be hugely welcome in Cumbria. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with Lord Heseltine’s recommendation?

Nicholas Clegg: As it happens, I agree with much of what Michael Heseltine set out in his report. Not only do we have a highly over-centralised political system in this country, but we have an economy that has over-relied on the City of London and the south-east, whereas we need to spread prosperity. He is very supportive not only of the regional growth fund and the localisation of business rates, but crucially and perhaps most radically of all, of the new city deals that we are entering into. I do not agree with him, as it happens, on the one point that my hon. Friend raises—moving all of local government on to a unitary basis, but I am well aware that that divides opinion across all parties.

William Bain: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that figures from Gingerbread and the Library of the House show that 115,000 lone parents in work and on tax credits in Scotland will be worse off working full time than part time when the universal credit is introduced next April and housing and child care costs are taken into account? Would this not completely undermine the Government’s promise to make work pay, and what is the Deputy Prime Minister going to do about it?

Nicholas Clegg: First, we are going to improve the provision of child care, which is why as of April next year this is the first Government ever who will provide 15 hours of free child care and pre-school support to the children from the poorest families in the country. Secondly, we are raising the point at which people pay income tax, taking 2 million people on low pay out of income tax. Rather than brandishing figures, the hon. Gentleman should wait and see the details of how the universal credit will work, because the interaction between the universal credit and those tax changes will be some of the most progressive changes that have been introduced by any Government in living memory in order to make sure that work pays.

Glyn Davies: Yesterday the Silk commission recommended that tax-raising —tax-varying—powers be granted to the National Assembly for Wales, a big decision requiring the approval of the people of Wales. If the party or parties which form the next Government have clearly and openly included this as manifesto commitments, will a referendum be needed?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Silk commission is divided into two parts. The first report, provided just this week, advocated a substantial change in the fiscal arrangements and the fiscal powers enjoyed by the Administration in Cardiff, analogous to what happened under the Calman process but in some important respects, particularly on income tax, going even further than the Calman design in Scotland. That will then be supplemented by a second report on the wider constitutional future of Wales. Only at that point will we be able to decide exactly how all those proposed changes will be adopted and possibly sanctioned by the people of Wales.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Talking to people last Thursday, I found that few supported the introduction of police and crime commissioners, and even fewer understood why they might be necessary. Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that he totally failed to make his case to the electorate? Will he now answer the question that has been asked twice already—would not the money have been better spent on more police officers or the building of affordable houses to kick-start the economy?

Nicholas Clegg: Surely the people who failed to make the case were all those Labour has-been politicians who did not get elected. I am still mystified. Even by Labour’s modern, contorted standards—let me get this right: the hon. Lady does not like police and crime commissioners, but she likes them enough to have Labour candidates. Then, when they do not win, she says that Labour never agreed with the introduction of PCCs in the first place. Who is she kidding?

Gavin Williamson: Many of my constituents think it is somewhat unwise for a Member of Parliament to disappear off to the jungle for a number of weeks. Will my right hon. Friend share his views on whether it is wise or not and, if he thinks it is a wise decision, whether he would disappear off on a reality television show, and which one he would choose to go on?

Nicholas Clegg: I have been invited to go to New Zealand and it has been suggested that membership of the Liberal Democrats should be made illegal; I am not going to supplement all of that by commenting on where I end up in a reality TV show. Of course I think it is unwise. Whatever party we come from, we are all elected to do a job for our constituents. That is what people rightly expect of us, and it is no wonder that people have been so unhappy about the decision of one Member of this House to eat insects in the jungle instead.

David Anderson: It was claimed last week that one of the reasons why we had police and crime commissioner elections was that police authorities had no democratic legitimacy—indeed the Conservative party chairman said that PCCs are 5 million times more legitimate than police authorities were. If that is the case, what legitimacy is held by Ministers of State who have no direct democratic input from this country but who are, in fact, appointed in a way that is much less transparent than appointments to police authorities? Where is the legitimacy for any Minister of State?

Nicholas Clegg: If I understand it correctly, the Labour party’s position is that there should be direct elections to police authorities, so it agrees that there should be a change in the arrangements to give the public a greater democratic say in how policing is organised in their local area. The policy happens to be one that was not advocated by my party, but it was, rightly and understandably, in the coalition agreement, having been brought in by the Conservatives, so it is right that we should deliver it. I remain nonplussed that the hon. Gentleman is now so critical of the policy when the posts were so ferociously contested by numerous—failed, as it turns out—Labour politicians last week.

Priti Patel: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Prime Minister, the House of Commons and the majority of the British public that prisoners should not get the right to vote, and will he oppose the will of the European Court of Human Rights on this matter?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Lady well knows, this is a vexed subject. We have the Court ruling that, in its view, the blanket rule is not consistent with the law, and it set a deadline. The House has made its contrasting views very well known, and I know that the Secretary of State for Justice is to set out the next steps on the whole issue very shortly.

Ian Mearns: I know the Deputy Prime Minister is an avid reader of the ConservativeHome website, written as it is by his coalition partners. In a recent article about the Boundary Commission review, and with particular reference to his party, it said:
	“the next election is our best opportunity in a generation to significantly cut their numbers. While they are down…we shouldn’t show mercy. We must finish them off.”
	Given those views from his coalition partners, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House that his party’s Commons votes cannot be bought for some sort of short-term deal on state funding?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not know many times I have clearly set out my position—

Emily Thornberry: Say it again.

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Lady does not normally welcome my views on most issues, but I will do as she asks. My view is that because of the failure to deliver the wider package of constitutional reform we entered into, it is entirely reasonable—a deal being a deal—that other parts of the package are not proceeded with. That is why my party wants the implementation of boundary changes to be delayed beyond the next general election, and that is how we will vote when the opportunity arises.

Amber Rudd: What progress has the Deputy Prime Minister made on additional support for disabled people to achieve elected office, and might that be in place by the 2015 general election?

Nicholas Clegg: I know that a great deal of work has been done across party boundaries to make sure that people with disabilities have greater access to this place. In July, we launched the access to elected office strategy, with the aim of doing just that; a new £2.6 million fund will help disabled candidates to meet the additional costs they face; we have three paid internships for disabled people on the Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme; and there is new guidance for political parties on making reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of disabled members and candidates.

William McCrea: While the Deputy Prime Minister continues to discuss getting additional support for disabled people to achieve public office, which is an important matter, will he also ensure that impediments are removed from polling stations where disabled people wish to exercise their right to vote?

Nicholas Clegg: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that local authorities and returning officers have an obligation to ensure unimpeded access for all voters so that everyone, regardless of their circumstances, can exercise their right to a democratic vote.

Tim Farron: We now elect police commissioners, yet up and down the country, including in my constituency and in the Yorkshire dales and the Lake district, we have national park authorities, which, in effect, perform the function of a local council but are totally unelected by, and unaccountable to, the people they serve. Is not it time the Government looked at making our national park authorities democratically elected, too?

Nicholas Clegg: I, too, have a significant chunk of a national park in my constituency and know that this issue divides opinion among those who are familiar with our great national parks. I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s view that it would be a good thing if local people’s preferences were reflected more fully in the way national parks are governed, and I know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is actively looking at the issue.

Dennis Skinner: In view of the miserable turnout at last Thursday’s elections for police and crime commissioners, will the Deputy Prime Minister and other members of his Government give a cast-iron guarantee that never again will they bleat about the turnout at trade union elections, which on average is more than double what we saw last Thursday?

Nicholas Clegg: The big difference is that police and crime commissioners do not write parliamentary questions for Government Members, which is what the trade union bosses do for Opposition Members, spoon-feeding them questions while funding 90% of all the Labour party’s financial needs. Police and crime commissioners do not fund either the Conservative or the Liberal Democrat parties. That is quite a difference.

Martin Vickers: It is not just national park authorities that are unaccountable; many quangos up and down the country make decisions that
	affect many of our constituents. Does the Deputy Prime Minister have any plans to ensure that more of those decisions are made by elected representatives, rather than unaccountable bodies?

Nicholas Clegg: I think that the general principle that there should be greater legitimacy when people take decisions in the name of the public and that affect the public is an important one, and it is not one that found a great deal of favour across both sides of this House when we debated it as it applied to the House of Lords. We have made considerable efforts to streamline some of the extraordinary blizzard of unaccountable quangos that developed under Labour. I know that various Ministers have made considerable efforts in their Departments to reduce the number of quangos and, therefore, introduce greater legitimacy in public decision making.

Chris Bryant: The Deputy Prime Minister has taken an admirable position in relation to the Leveson inquiry. Would it not be in the interests of transparency for all the e-mails between Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson, while he was working at No. 10 Downing street and corresponding about the future of the licence fee and many other issues, to be in the public domain before the inquiry publishes its findings?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that he has provided all the e-mails and information required of him by the Leveson inquiry. On the inquiry generally, the hon. Gentleman also knows that my view has been for some time, given that we established the inquiry, which the previous Government did not do, that if the recommendations are workable and proportionate, we should proceed and seek to implement them.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

Specialist Rape and Child Abuse Prosecutors

Lilian Greenwood: What steps he is taking to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service’s networks of specialist rape and child abuse prosecutors are adequately funded.

Julie Hilling: What steps he is taking to ensure that the CPS’s networks of specialist rape and child abuse prosecutors are adequately funded.

Meg Hillier: What steps he is taking to ensure that the CPS’s networks of specialist rape and child abuse prosecutors are adequately funded.

Oliver Heald: The prosecution of rape and child abuse is and will remain a key priority for the Crown Prosecution Service and will continue to be funded accordingly.

Lilian Greenwood: I thank the Solicitor-General for that rather brief response. Will child abuse cases always be prosecuted by specialist advocates or, as is now the case in rape trials, only when the specialist happens to be available?

Oliver Heald: That is not correct. All Crown Prosecution Service advocates have been trained in how to deal with domestic violence cases. Some 800 have been fully trained as rape specialists, and they are always involved in any rape case, so it is not right to say that that is not so. A network has been set up, under Mr Nazir Afzal, the chief Crown prosecutor for the north-west, to look at child sexual exploitation and improve prosecution, and it is proving successful.

Julie Hilling: The Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated that the Crown Prosecution Service’s failings in child grooming cases go well beyond Rochdale, and he said that a whole category of crimes has not been well treated by the criminal justice system. Does the Solicitor-General know how many cases the DPP is referring to and whether any of them will now be revisited by the CPS?

Oliver Heald: Whenever a case is the subject of further evidence or it is suggested that the right prosecution decision has not been made, the CPS takes that very seriously, and, as the hon. Lady will know, it reviews cases as appropriate. It is worth making the point that the CPS is improving its performance in rape and sexual abuse cases. Rape convictions are up by 4% year on year, and that is continuing in the current year, and there is an improvement across the area of sexual violence generally.

Meg Hillier: Rape convictions may be up, but they are still woefully low. Given that next Sunday is international day to end violence against women, will the Solicitor-General expand on his earlier comments about the number of specialist prosecutors? The key question is whether there are enough of them for justice to be pursued swiftly, which makes things better for the victim and more likely that a prosecution will be secured.

Oliver Heald: The hon. Lady is right to say that this is a key priority. It is extremely important that the Crown Prosecution Service deals effectively with these cases, which are so important. That is why a huge effort is going on, with improvements to guidance and ensuring that prosecutors are properly trained in this area. As she may know, the Director of Public Prosecutions himself led the training for prosecutors in the past year and made sure that particular reference was made to supporting witnesses. This is an area of vital concern. I could go on for hours, but I will not.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Solicitor-General share my concern at the delay in prosecutions being brought in North Yorkshire because of the lack of a sexual assault and rape centre? Will he use his good offices to ensure that we have one at the first available opportunity to enable not only counselling to be given but forensic evidence to be taken to enable rapid prosecutions to take place?

Oliver Heald: It is important to have very good arrangements for the support of witnesses. As somebody who has prosecuted rape cases, I can say that
	they are not easy. It is very important that witnesses feel confident that they can give their evidence, and that is all about support. I will certainly look into the situation that my hon. Friend has mentioned, but she should not think anything other than that the Government take this extremely seriously, as does the Crown Prosecution Service.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements

Mary Glindon: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the introduction of deferred prosecution agreements on the level of economic crime.

Oliver Heald: It is not possible to quantify exactly what the effect of the new deferred prosecution agreements will be on the amount of economic crime, but we do believe that they will contribute to the welcome trend of an increase in self-reporting by organisations. That will enable the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service to obtain better evidence so that prosecutors will be able to bring more cases and restitution will be obtained, and this could lead to a reduction in the amount of economic crime.

Mary Glindon: What steps will the Minister take if the proportion of cases resolved by the CPS creeps higher than the Government have forecast in the impact assessment? Does he agree that a sunset clause of five years would be a sensible safeguard?

Oliver Heald: It is certainly important to recognise that this is not an alternative to prosecuting in serious cases, and the SFO and the CPS are very anxious to ensure that that is the case. It is particularly important that individuals should not feel that they have any way out of their liabilities, but this relates purely to organisations. A sunset clause is not contemplated at present, but the hon. Lady has put the idea forward and of course I will look at it. I thank her for making that important contribution.

Chris Bryant: But all too often directors of companies are, in effect, complicit in what has been going on when economic crime is involved in their organisation. They want to protect the company rather than self-declare. Indeed, this surely must lead the Crown Prosecution Service to take very seriously the idea, when directors are negligent, of bringing prosecutions under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or the Data Protection Act against the body corporate—for instance, News International.

Oliver Heald: I clearly cannot comment on a particular case, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is important that this should be about self-reporting by companies. That does not let individuals off the hook, but means that the business and jobs can continue and that these business entities have certainty, while ensuring that they are on tough conditions. The whole point of this is that a company should pay a penalty and be on tough conditions that will be monitored by a judge, to ensure that it cleans up its act and provides all the information necessary to the prosecution authorities.

Hillsborough

Graham Evans: What recent representations he has received on an inquest into the death of Kevin Williams in the Hillsborough disaster; and if he will make a statement.

Dominic Grieve: In relation to the death of Kevin Williams I have received a number of representations. I acknowledge the significant public support for Kevin Williams’s case to be accelerated. However, the evidence that supports a new inquest into Kevin Williams’s death is basically the same as that in relation to the deaths of all the other victims of Hillsborough. My duty is to act in the public interests of all the victims of Hillsborough and I consider that wider public interest requires a single application to be made in relation to the inquests. I have made good progress on preparing an application to the High Court for new inquests in these cases and I expect to make the application in December.

Graham Evans: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Will he join me in recognising the role that Mrs Williams has played in fighting for justice for the 96 in setting up the charity Hope for Hillsborough?

Dominic Grieve: I entirely acknowledge her key role in this matter and am particularly troubled to hear of her ill health. As I have said, I will do everything I can to take this process forward as quickly as possible, but I have to consult properly. There are a number of things that I simply cannot short-cut. I am endeavouring to do it as fast as possible and, as I said a moment ago, I hope that I can stick to the timetable that I have identified.

Bill Esterson: I know that the families will welcome what the Attorney-General has said about making an application in December and I thank him for that. Anne Williams is seriously ill and all she wants is official recognition of why her son died. I know that the Attorney-General understands that, but could I urge him to do all he can to grant her wish before it is too late?

Dominic Grieve: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he must also appreciate that my application is to quash the existing inquest verdict and, if that happens, for the court to order a fresh inquest or inquests. Once I have carried out my task of presenting the case to the court, my function will be at an end and I obviously cannot predict the time it would then take for the fresh inquests to take place. I have no doubt that, if the original inquest verdicts are quashed, it would be greatly in the public interest for the matter to move forward as quickly as possible, although, as I have told the House before, some criminal investigations might affect the time scale.

Stephen Mosley: The e-petition calling for a speedy new inquest into Kevin’s death has passed the 100,000 mark in the past hour. May I add my voice to those of Government and Opposition Members calling for a speedy inquiry into Kevin’s death?

Dominic Grieve: I fully appreciate the good reasons why many would sign such a petition. I acknowledge that entirely. I can only do my job properly and professionally. As I have said, a number of things have to take place, such as consultation with each individual family. Medical evidence also has to be reviewed so that I can reassure the court that any new inquest could reach an informed decision on the cause and time of death even on the basis of the paper documentation available. For that purpose, I have retained the services of an expert forensic pathologist. That just gives the House a flavour of what I have to do.

Steve Rotheram: Could the Attorney-General assure the House that he has all the resources available to him to expedite this matter as quickly as possible?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, this is not a resource issue; it is a mere time issue. We have written, for example, to the families—we have to consult them—and I think it is reasonable to give them a calendar month in which to respond, and that date has not yet expired. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that no short-cuts can be taken to take the matter to the court.

Prisoner Voting Rights

Karl McCartney: Whether he has given legal advice to the Secretary of State for Justice on the potential financial penalties the European Court of Human Rights could impose on the UK in respect of its policy on prisoners’ voting rights.

Dominic Grieve: By long-standing convention observed by successive Governments, the fact and substance of advice from the Law Officers is not disclosed outside government. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore understand why I cannot say whether I have given any legal advice in relation to this matter.
	It may be helpful for my hon. Friend to know that the Strasbourg Court can order the payment of compensation and of legal costs and expenses, but cannot impose any other financial penalty. Non-financial sanctions are a matter for the Committee of Ministers and, ultimately, for the Council of Europe itself.

Karl McCartney: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he agree that this instance of judicial activism by the European Court of Human Rights seeks to undermine the democratic mandate of this House? Does he recognise that talk of the UK meeting its international obligations with respect to the Court’s judgment seems a bit premature when one considers that hundreds of unimplemented judgments are pending review by the Committee of Ministers at the Council of Europe?

Dominic Grieve: No, I have to disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that the democratic mandate of this House is challenged. Parliamentary sovereignty remains. It is open to Parliament to decide not to change the law. However, if Parliament chooses not to implement the judgment, it would be a serious matter, because it would place the UK in breach of its international obligations to which it is a signatory. I accept that other
	countries are in breach of their implementation obligations, but that does not provide an excuse for our not honouring our own.
	In addition, it is right to point out that only one other pilot judgment, besides the Greens and MT judgment, has not been implemented. That is in a case concerning Ukraine. There are, of course, many hundreds of judgments at various stages of implementation, but that is a slightly different issue.

Mr Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s answers are invariably works of scholarship, from which no matter that he judges could be of any conceivable interest would ever be excluded.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Attorney-General agree that there are two good reasons why we should implement legislation on prisoners’ voting rights? Firstly, we would be adhering to our obligations under the European convention on human rights. Secondly, it is a useful part of the rehabilitative process that prisoners do not lose all their rights when they go to prison, but rather lose their liberty. The opportunity to vote is actually quite helpful, as the South Africans have found out now that they have universal voting rights for prisoners.

Dominic Grieve: On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman may be correct. That is a matter for robust debate, which this House has had and may well continue to have on this subject. On the former point, it is right to say that the UK has always, in modern times, adhered to its international obligations. There are good reasons why a country should adhere to its international obligations, such as to set an example and to provide international confidence. Ultimately, of course, it is a matter for the House to determine.

Law on Contempt

Pauline Latham: What plans he has to review the law on contempt.

Dominic Grieve: In February 2011, an undertaking was given to the House that I would conduct an informal review of the law on contempt. As part of that process, I started consultations with various interested parties. However, my review has been overtaken by recent developments: Lord Neuberger’s report on super-injunctions, the Leveson inquiry and, of particular significance, the Law Commission’s review of the law on contempt. The last is a detailed and comprehensive formal review and the commission’s findings will doubtless inform what, if any, action is required from the Government.

Pauline Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that jurors are made aware of the sanctity of the jury room at the start of their jury service, and that possible offences under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, including use of social media, will be followed up?

Dominic Grieve: Yes, I share my hon. Friend’s concern. The judiciary makes it clear to jurors that they must respect the sanctity of the jury room and avoid research on the internet. That message has been reinforced by a number of contempt proceedings that I have
	brought, including in the cases of Mrs Fraill, who revealed details of the jury’s deliberations, and Dr Dallas, who conducted research on the internet. Both received terms of imprisonment. I can also confirm that yesterday, the president of the Queen’s bench division issued a protocol on jury irregularities, which provides guidance to the judiciary and practitioners on how best to address contempt committed by jurors.

Jimmy Savile

Yvonne Fovargue: What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the Crown Prosecution Service’s handling of cases referred to it in 2009 involving alleged sexual assaults by Jimmy Savile.

Oliver Heald: Neither I nor the Attorney-General have yet had discussions directly with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the case. This week, the Attorney-General was briefed by the principal legal adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Levitt QC, on her draft review, and I understand that that draft review is now with the director for consideration.

Yvonne Fovargue: What consideration has been given to proposals by the Director of Public Prosecutions that the Crown Prosecution Service should be able to refer cases to other relevant agencies—such as social services—where it concludes that there is insufficient evidence for a prosecution?

Oliver Heald: The hon. Lady is right and it is an important point. The Crown Prosecution Service is currently considering its policy on how it shares information with other relevant agencies. It is, of course, important that disclosures and information that may be helpful in protecting a vulnerable person are shared where possible, and the Attorney-General and I feel that that process should be considered carefully and in a positive way.

Serious Fraud Office

Henry Bellingham: What plans he has to improve the efficiency of the Serious Fraud Office.

Dominic Grieve: I have appointed a new director to the Serious Fraud Office who started work in April. David Green QC has restructured the office, made high-profile appointments and built in layers of quality control. He has clearly restated the intent and purpose of the SFO, and I am confident that, as a result, we will see improved efficiency and performance. I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses the report of the inspection of the SFO by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, which I requested. I thank the chief inspector and his team for that helpful report, and confirm that the new director of the SFO has accepted all its recommendations and is already implementing them.

Henry Bellingham: I thank the Attorney-General for that helpful reply. Does he agree that the SFO has a vital role to play in the drive against crime linked to corruption and bribery, but that UK exporters must
	know where they stand and be treated fairly? Can he confirm that the current guidelines are fit for purpose and that no major or fundamental changes will be made to them?

Dominic Grieve: Bribery and corruption are serious offences. Guidelines have been published to help companies in that respect, and I have every confidence that no company will be prosecuted unless it has committed a serious offence. I cannot, however, give an undertaking that the guidelines will not be subject to review. The guidelines will evolve over time, and they are just that—guidelines. Ultimately, it is for the director of the SFO and the Director of Public Prosecutions to make a decision based on an evidential test and the public interest.

Emily Thornberry: Two weeks ago we were astounded to learn that the former chief executive of the Serious Fraud Office had received an unauthorised send-off of £440,000 for just two years in the post. Last week we learned that the outgoing chief operating officer struck a confidential deal on similar lines to that offered to Ms Williamson. What is the scale of that second payment and can it be stopped? Who knew about both payments, and when? Is this negligence, incompetence, or a deliberate bypassing of the system? Finally, what guarantees can the Attorney-General give the House that he is no longer asleep at the wheel?

Dominic Grieve: First, neither I nor anyone in my office was aware of the irregular payments that were
	made. They came to light subsequently on the appointment of the new director, and are a matter of great concern to me, as are all irregular payments. I am satisfied that the new director has put in place all necessary measures to ensure that such a matter will not occur again. The hon. Lady asked about dates. I would be happy to write to her so that she is aware of exactly when the matter came to light, although I am afraid I do not have that recollection in my mind at the moment. I will ensure that her point about the chief operating officer is also answered.

Mr Speaker: Generosity of spirit gets the better of me. Mr Robert Buckland.

Robert Buckland: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that a request for further resources for the SFO to investigate the LIBOR scandal will be met favourably by the Government?

Dominic Grieve: I reassure my hon. Friend that the matter has already met a favourable response from the Government in terms of ensuring that adequate funds are made available. My hon. Friends and colleagues in the Treasury will want reassurance that the money is being well used, but I am quite satisfied that money and resources are available for the SFO. The director and I are also quite satisfied that he has the necessary resources to carry out the investigation properly.

Middle East

William Hague: Mr Speaker, with permission, I will make a statement on Gaza, the middle east peace process and Syria.
	The whole House will be united in concern both at the intolerable situation for the residents of southern Israel, and at the grave loss of life and humanitarian suffering in Gaza, including the particular impact on children. On 14 November, the Israeli defence forces began air strikes against the Gaza strip in response to a sharp increase in rocket fire. Hamas and other militant groups responded with even greater rocket fire, although those attacks have been reduced in the last two days. As of today, three Israeli citizens have been killed, including one woman and one child, and at least 109 Palestinians have been killed, including 11 women and 26 children.
	We have made clear both that Hamas bears principal responsibility for the start of the current crisis, but also that all sides have responsibilities. We quickly called on Israel to seek every opportunity to de-escalate its military response, and to observe international humanitarian law and avoid civilian casualties. At the meeting I attended in Brussels yesterday, EU Foreign Ministers condemned the rocket attacks on Israel and called for an urgent de-escalation and cessation of hostilities. We have also warned that a ground invasion of Gaza could lengthen the conflict, sharply increase civilian casualties, and erode international support for Israel’s position.
	We wish to see an agreed ceasefire that stops the rocket attacks against Israel and ends Israeli military operations. Efforts to agree a ceasefire are continuing as I speak, and the UN Security Council will continue discussions on the situation today. More open access in and out of Gaza is part of any longer-term solution. We pay tribute to the efforts of the Egyptian Government and the UN Secretary-General to secure an agreed ceasefire, and have supported those efforts over the past few days. I discussed them with my European colleagues yesterday, and with the Egyptian, Israeli and Turkish Foreign Ministers over the weekend, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Morsi. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), is in Ramallah today, where he will meet President Abbas, after visiting southern Israel yesterday.
	There is no military solution to the crisis in Gaza or to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Peace becomes harder to achieve with each military confrontation, each loss of life, and the creation of facts on the ground. The only way to give the Palestinian people the state that they need and deserve, and the Israeli people the security and peace they are entitled to, is through a negotiated two-state solution, and time for this is now running out. It requires Israelis and Palestinians to return to negotiations; Israel to stop illegal settlement building; Palestinian factions to reconcile with one another; and the international community, led by the United States and supported by European nations, to make a huge effort to push the peace process forward urgently.
	While there is any chance of achieving a return to talks in the coming months, we continue to advise President Abbas against attempts to win Palestinian observer state status at the United Nations through a vote in the UN General Assembly. We judge that that would make it harder to secure a return to negotiations, and could have very serious consequences for the Palestinian Authority. Our collective goal must be a two-state solution based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the capital of both states, and a just settlement for refugees, so while we support Palestinian aspirations and understand the pressures on President Abbas, we urge him to lead the Palestinians into negotiations and not to risk paralysing the process, but we also urge Israel equally to make every effort to restart negotiations, before the window for a two-state solution closes altogether.
	The urgency of all of this is underlined by the conflict in Syria. The whole House will join me in condemning the barbaric violence by the Assad regime, which continues its aerial warfare against Aleppo, Homs and Damascus itself. Thirty thousand people have died already, and more than 100 are still being killed each day. Countless homes, clinics, hospitals and essential infrastructure, such as water and sanitation systems, have been destroyed or severely damaged, and between 1 million and 3 million people have been displaced from their homes. There are appalling reports of rape and sexual violence by Government forces and militia, and as a form of torture in regime detention centres, which the UN Human Rights Council-mandated commission of inquiry has said could be prosecuted as crimes against humanity.
	There are now well over 400,000 refugees in neighbouring countries. The impact on young Syrians is particularly acute, since 50% of all Syrian internally displaced persons and refugees are children. We are increasing our humanitarian assistance as the crisis grows and winter approaches, and our appeals to other members of the international community to give far more to UN relief efforts have been intensified. Our £53.5 million in humanitarian assistance so far includes £9.7 million for the World Food Programme to feed 80,000 people inside Syria each month; £4 million to the UN Refugee Agency to provide shelter and other basic relief items; and £9.7 million to other relief agencies for medical services and supplies, food parcels, water and sanitation services, distribution of blankets and hygiene kits.
	In neighbouring countries, we have given £10 million for the UN Refugee Agency to provide shelter, protection, registration, and water and sanitation services to refugees; £5 million to the World Food Programme to feed 20,000 people; and £6 million to UNICEF to provide education and trauma support for children, and water and sanitation services. In Cairo last week, I called on other countries to increase their contribution to the relief effort, which the UN has described as “critically underfunded”. But what is urgently needed is a political transition to new and legitimate leadership that reflects the will of the Syrian people and that can end the violence and begin to rebuild the country with regional and international support. On 11 November there was a major breakthrough in Doha, with the establishment of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, which has been welcomed by many Syrians.
	Last Friday, I met the president and two of the vice-presidents of the national coalition on their first visit to Europe. I sought assurances from them in three
	areas. First, I urged them to commit themselves to developing their political structures, widening their support among all sections of Syrian society, and agreeing a detailed political transition plan for Syria. Secondly, I encouraged them to use the next Friends of Syria meeting, which we hope will be held in Morocco next month, to set out a plan for Syria’s future in detail. Thirdly, I urged them to show a clear commitment to human rights and international humanitarian law, including the protection of all religious communities and unfettered and safe access for humanitarian agencies. In response, they stressed their determination to build on the Doha agreement and to leave the door open to other opposition groups to join them. They spoke of their intention to win the trust of Syrians from all communities, to be a moderate political force committed to democracy, and not to repeat the abuses of the Assad regime. They told me that their priority was protecting the civilian population against attack, and focusing on achieving a political transition. It would be for the people of Syria, they told me, to approve a future Government.
	These are important and encouraging statements by the national coalition. They have much to do to win the full support of the Syrian people and to co-ordinate opposition efforts more effectively, but it is strongly in the interests of Syria, of the wider region, and of the United Kingdom that we support them and deny space to extremist groups. On the basis of the assurances I received and my consultations with European partners yesterday, Her Majesty’s Government have decided to recognise the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. As the president of the national coalition said to me on Friday, recognition imposes responsibilities on the coalition, and we will continue to press them to uphold their commitments.
	I can also announce a significant increase in practical support for the Syrian opposition by the United Kingdom. First, we will invite the coalition to appoint a political representative to the UK, and we will offer support to them as they set up their political and humanitarian structures. Secondly, we will provide a £1 million package of communications support, which could, for instance, include mobile internet hubs and satellite phones to improve their ability to communicate inside Syria. Thirdly, we will urgently deploy a stabilisation response team to the region to work with the coalition to develop its plan to meet people’s basic needs in opposition-held areas. This team will draw up recommendations for areas for further UK assistance.
	Fourthly, and separately, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is looking at increasing our assistance to Syrians affected by the conflict. This could include increasing our humanitarian medical assistance for wounded Syrian civilians by providing UK funding for hospitals and mobile clinics, and training for health workers. We also intend to launch new work to build on our existing work to support victims of sexual violence in Syria.
	This new package of support amounts to about £2 million of immediate commitments, and we will look to expand this considerably in the coming months. This comes on top of the training of citizen journalists, human rights advocates, doctors and Syrian activists that we have already provided, and the generators, communications equipment and water purification kits
	for unarmed opposition groups and civil society that I announced during the summer. Alongside that increased political and practical support, we are pressing the EU to increase its support to civil society in Syria.
	We will continue to increase the pressure on Assad and those who support him through EU sanctions, including seeking accountability through the UN’s commission of inquiry. We also expect there to be discussions in NATO in the coming days about supporting the security of Turkey, and we will continue to work with all of Syria’s neighbours to help them mitigate the effects of the crisis. We will also step up our support for political transition and our planning for the day after Assad.
	Finally, we will continue to support the work of the UN and Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, whom I met a few days ago in Cairo, and we will renew our efforts to persuade Russia and China to work with us at the UN Security Council. I will take every opportunity to urge my Russian and Chinese colleagues to support a political and diplomatic solution to the conflict in Syria. Without such a solution, everything that they and we most fear is coming closer, including ever greater loss of life, instability in neighbouring countries and an opportunity for extremists to pursue their own ends.
	The basis for such a political settlement is clear. A credible alternative to the Assad regime is emerging that has the growing support of the Arab League, the European Union, the United States and an increasing number of other countries, and we have an agreed basis for a transition in the form of the Geneva communiqué, which all permanent members of the UN Security Council signed up to in June. In the absence of that political and diplomatic solution, however, we will not rule out any option in accordance with international law that might save innocent lives in Syria and prevent the destabilisation of a region that remains critical to the security of the United Kingdom and the peace of the whole world.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for making his statement and for giving me early sight of it today. I shall first address the issue of Syria and the announcement that the Foreign Secretary made in his statement, and I wish to note my recent visit to the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, which has been appropriately registered.
	As we have just heard from the Foreign Secretary, only a credible and inclusive transition plan and a united opposition hold the prospect of being a bridge between conflict and a sustainable peace in Syria. Until now, not only the Security Council but the Syrian opposition have been disastrously divided. Over many months, the Russians have continued to ask the west, “So if Assad goes, what comes next?” On 11 November, however, we saw the establishment of the new Syrian national coalition in Doha.
	Last week, the Opposition called on the Government to recognise the new Syrian national coalition, so I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement today that the British Government have taken the decision to recognise it as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Recognition is a vital step forward, but can
	he tell us whether he intends to use this new-found unity within the opposition as the basis for a fresh diplomatic approach to the Russians?
	The Opposition are clear that the correct focus for the UK’s efforts on Syria in the days and months ahead must be helping to unify the Syrian opposition, not helping to arm them, so will the Foreign Secretary give the House a guarantee that the recognition of the Syrian national coalition is not a precursor to arming the Syrian opposition fighters, which he must acknowledge would be against the European arms embargo currently in place?
	The emergence of a political process must not distract us from the pressing humanitarian crisis. On my recent visit to the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, I saw for myself the sheer scale of the human suffering that is a devastating consequence of this war in Syria.
	As winter approaches, with more than 2.5 million of Syria’s 23 million people now displaced and non-governmental organisations warning that 200,000 Syrian refugee children are at serious risk from freezing temperatures, action is needed. I therefore welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement that the British Government will be increasing British aid, but will he set out what specific steps he and his colleagues in Government will take to encourage others in the international community to increase their support in the face of the growing humanitarian crisis to which he referred? There is still a significant shortfall in the funds for the UN appeal for Syria. Britain must play its part in encouraging others to contribute and make up this inexcusable shortfall.
	Let me turn now to the issue of Gaza. In common with those on the Government Benches, we abhor the loss of life that we have seen in recent days. The Foreign Secretary has reiterated today that principal responsibility for the start of the crisis lies with Hamas. Of course the recent rocket attacks into southern Israel, targeted at a civilian population, deserve our categorical condemnation, but does he accept that although the rockets were the proximate cause, the deeper causes of the latest crisis reflect the failure over years and decades to achieve a two-state solution? Every time a military solution is prioritised over a political solution, greater future problems are generated. Indeed, there is and can be no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
	The Israelis have stressed that their response is justified by the recent escalation of Hamas rocket attacks. No civilian population should have to live in such constant fear, but does the Foreign Secretary recognise that acknowledging—as I do—Israel’s right to defend itself does not oblige the British Government to suspend judgment on the wisdom of its chosen actions? As a response to the rocket attacks from Gaza four years ago, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead, in which 13 Israelis and more than 1,400 Palestinians were killed. Operation Cast Lead had the aim of
	“destroying the apparatus of terror”,
	yet four years on Hamas is still in power in Gaza. More than 1,000 missiles have been launched from Gaza into Israel this year, and in recent days rockets have reached Tel Aviv and the outskirts of Jerusalem. Since Operation Pillar of Defence began on Wednesday, three Israelis
	and more than 100 Palestinians, many of them civilians, have been killed. Does the Foreign Secretary therefore accept that the scale of the casualties in Gaza, together with the continuing blockade, fuels hatred and emboldens those seeking to isolate Israel internationally? Does he also accept that the marginalisation of the Palestinian Authority by these events further diminishes the prospects for immediate negotiations—and, indeed, Palestinian unity—and that Hamas will undoubtedly claim itself to be the victor, whatever the outcome of the operation or, indeed, the negotiations currently under way in Cairo?
	Does the Foreign Secretary accept that if the operating logic of Hamas is terror and the operating logic of Israel is deterrence, then pleas for restraint risk simply falling on deaf ears? We on the Opposition Benches have for a number of days been urging not simply restraint, but an immediate cessation of violence. We have been clear that a full-scale ground invasion would be a disaster for the peoples of both Gaza and Israel. It would risk escalating the already spiralling death toll and further damage the hope for peace and security. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, given reports of overflowing wards in Gazan hospitals and the prior degradation of those facilities as a result of the blockade, free and unfettered access, including free passage through crossings, should urgently be guaranteed for medical and humanitarian personnel? Will he also set out what discussions he has had with the Egyptians about humanitarian access and stemming the flow of arms into Gaza—specifically Iranian missile technology—not only in these volatile days of conflict, but in the longer term?
	On Saturday, Opposition Members called for a full-scale UN diplomatic initiative to end the violence. We urged the Secretary-General of the United Nations to travel to the region, and we welcome the fact that he has now done so, because sustained international engagement will be vital in helping to bring the conflict to an end. Past military action has failed to bring a durable peace. The fear of the Israeli population today stands alongside the suffering of the Palestinian people. Permanent occupation and blockade is not a strategy for peace; it is a recipe for repeated conflict. Talk of the “middle east peace process” ignores the fact that, sadly, today there is no peace and there is no process. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the long-term security of Israel will depend on its readiness to be as bold in seeking peace as it has been in using military force? At a minimum, that means that Israel must immediately end illegal settlement expansion, which is currently a key barrier to advancing negotiations.
	Labour urges the Government to reconsider their stated opposition—repeated again today—and instead support the Palestinians’ bid for enhanced status at the United Nations at this month’s General Assembly meeting. This is not an alternative to negotiations, but a bridge for beginning them. The Foreign Secretary in his statement argued that recognition at the UN could “risk paralysing the process”, but when will he understand? There is at present no process; there is only paralysis. There is continued illegal settlement building. There are continued rocket attacks. There is continued fear and anxiety. There is continued occupation. There is continued blockade. But there are no meaningful negotiations, and there have not been any for a number of years. The suggestion that enhanced recognition of the Palestinians could
	somehow imperil progress in the peace process implies that progress is being achieved—and, indeed, that a peace process exists. At present, sadly, neither statement is true. Let us acknowledge this fact. After decades of diplomatic failure, increasingly some are questioning whether a two-state solution is any longer possible. That is why it is vital that as an international community, amidst the undoubted despair and the disappointment, we encourage the Palestinians to take the path of politics and reject the path of violence, and we rekindle hopes that there is a credible route to a viable Palestinian state and a secure Israel achieved by negotiations. The British Government, among others, have a heavy responsibility to advance that goal at the United Nationals in the coming weeks.

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Although there is one difference between us, on the UN General Assembly, I welcome his support and the fact that there is so much accord across the House on so many of these subjects and—taking them in the order he raised them—certainly on the new national coalition of the Syrian opposition. As he said, he has called for their recognition. Before the Government gave that recognition, I very much wanted to look into their eyes and ask the questions that I set out earlier, but I have given that recognition, and it is right to do so. All of us across the House have referred for a long time—as the right hon. Gentleman did in his questions—to the need for a unified opposition and the absence of that in the past as one of the obstacles to peace in Syria. Now that the Syrian opposition have done their utmost and made so many compromises to form a national coalition, it is right that we get behind them and that as much as possible of the world gets behind them. It is right for us to join in that, and we now look to the Syrian opposition to fulfil the commitments they have made.
	We have taken no decision consequent on that—or no decision at all as things stand—to change our policy on the EU arms embargo. We look at all options, as I have repeated today. We rule out no options. It is the job of the National Security Council to look at all options, particularly as the crisis worsens. At the moment it is going in the wrong direction, but we have taken no decision as things stand to change the policy. We are certainly putting other nations under a lot of pressure—there is a lot of persuasion—to increase the aid they are giving to address the huge humanitarian suffering that I and the right hon. Gentleman have seen on the borders of Syria. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development convened a meeting of many nations on this issue at the UN General Assembly. Since then some of them have increased their aid. Last week I attended the meeting of EU and Arab League Foreign Ministers in Cairo, and that was one of the main points I made to them—that increased contributions, particularly from the Arab world, will be necessary as winter comes and the number of refugees continues to increase—so I think I can readily agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman said on that subject.
	Of course we will now—again, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested—use the fact that the opposition have come together in an unprecedented way to renew our diplomatic efforts with Russia. If one of Russia’s objections is—and it always has been—that there is no single interlocutor on the opposition side, that objection at least has now been removed to the possibility of
	diplomatic progress. I stress that it remains the case that the only real solution in Syria is a diplomatic and political solution. Neither side has anywhere near the military strength to overthrow or remove the other. Even if they did so, they would then be dealing with a deeply fractured society for generations.
	There is a lot of agreement on many aspects of the middle east peace process. Whenever a conflict such as this one in Gaza occurs, it is vital to remember the wider picture. At the root of all this is the failure to make progress on the middle east peace process. It is absolutely right to point to the sharp increase in rocket attacks—they have gone up steadily over the years since Operation Cast Lead—as producing the current crisis, but it is also quite right to make clear the need for improved access in and out of Gaza in order to allow humanitarian assistance and trade to proceed. It is a mistake by Israel to have such tight restrictions on Gaza; we have often made that clear.
	The one point of difference between the right hon. Gentleman and me has been over the tactics of the UN General Assembly, and I want to explain the reason for the Government’s position. Time is running out for the two-state solution. Owing to unacceptable settlement building on the west bank and in east Jerusalem, we are not far from a two-state solution becoming impossible and unviable. With the Israeli election coming to an end in January, with the US election now over, and with time clearly running out, this coming year will be a critical one. People always say, “This will be a critical year,” but this really is one. If progress towards a two-state solution is not made in the coming year, it will, in all probability, not be made.
	The message that we have given to the United States is that it is vital that they and we and the major EU countries put our full weight behind this over the coming months. However, we have to ask whether a motion on observer status being carried at the UN General Assembly now would make that easier or more difficult. There is a perfectly respectable and legitimate case for saying that it would be right to pass such a motion because this has gone on for so long and because Palestinian frustrations are so intense, for understandable reasons. I believe, however, that the balance of judgment comes down on the side of saying that to do so would be more likely to retard efforts to restart the peace process than to advance them—[ Interruption. ] Hon. Members will make different judgments about that. We will see, over time, what the reality is.
	If such a motion is carried, we must of course move heaven and earth to prevent it from retarding the peace process and the attempt to restart negotiations. Our message to the United States would be the same. As things stand, however, because of the possible reaction of the US Congress and the possibility of Israel withholding tax revenues, the position of the Palestinian Authority could be made worse by the passage of such a resolution. We will therefore use our vote on this in whatever way we think will keep open the best prospect of negotiations. We will consult closely with our partners in the European Union about this, as I was doing yesterday. I hope that there will be a large measure of European agreement on how to vote on the resolution.
	That is the reason for our position on the matter, and it has the best interests of the Palestinians and the creation of a Palestinian state at heart. In international
	diplomacy, when our heart and our head pull in different directions, we have to give precedence to the considerations of our head, and the best way to pursue the peace process is to put our full weight behind it in the coming months.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Inevitably, I have granted some latitude to the two Front Benches to enable them to treat of all the various matters involved. In trying to accommodate this level of interest, given other pressures on time, it would help if right hon. and hon. Members could confine themselves to a single short question, rather than covering all the terrain. Such questions will, I know, be followed by a typically succinct reply from the Foreign Secretary.

Peter Tapsell: In view of the increasing gravity of the situation in the middle east, will my right hon. Friend ask the Leader of the House and Mr Speaker whether they will arrange a full-scale parliamentary debate on the middle east in prime time next week, with time limits on Back-Bench speeches of not less than 15 minutes, so that we can have a proper Back-Bench debate and not a series of soundbites?

William Hague: I think that that is a question for my colleagues, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House has heard that request. I must say, however, that it would be a tragedy if the comments of my right hon. Friend the Father of the House were limited to 15 minutes.

Jack Straw: Given that the experience of the past decade or more is that Israel pockets any concession made by the west to accommodate its position and then not only does nothing but makes the situation worse—by illegal settlement building, for example—will the Foreign Secretary please reconsider his position on the British Government’s refusal to vote for the United Nations General Assembly resolution? He is a man of great fluency, and he normally convinces the House with his arguments, but I find his reason for that refusal utterly incomprehensible. It is not that I disagree with it; I simply do not understand why our voting for the resolution would make the situation worse. Surely it would make it much better.

William Hague: I always listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, for obvious reasons. For the sake of clarity, I should say that the Government have taken no decision yet on how to vote on the resolution. We are arguing against the holding of such a vote, which would be carried in the UN General Assembly, because of the number of nations in favour of it. As I mentioned earlier, we will consult closely with our EU partners on this matter. There was a time when the right hon. Gentleman used to place great weight on the views of European Union Foreign Ministers, and after yesterday’s discussions, I believe that most of them have the same view as ours. That is the majority view for a reason: there is genuine anxiety about whether it would be possible, in the remaining short window, to restart the
	middle east peace process negotiations if the motion were carried now. It is therefore a tactical difference. There is a respectable difference of opinion on the matter, but I come down on that side of the judgment.

Malcolm Rifkind: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the emergence of the Syrian national coalition, and this Government’s welcome recognition of it today, removes a major barrier to the supply of defensive military equipment to the Syrian resistance? As the European embargo is due to expire on 1 December, and as President Hollande of France has said that France is now willing to reconsider the supply of defensive military equipment, will the Foreign Secretary look at this matter constructively? Does he recognise that what he rightly described as the barbaric violence of the Syrian regime against the civilian communities will not come to an end unless and until the Syrian resistance is able to defend itself?

William Hague: My right hon. and learned Friend has consistently made the case for the active arming of the Syrian opposition by western countries. In response, I have often pointed out some of the disadvantages of that course of action. There is no automatic change in our policy on that as a result of the recognition of the Syrian opposition. I have discussed the issues with the French Foreign Minister. The arms embargo is due to be rolled over and continued from 1 December, as part of the entire package of Syrian sanctions. Whatever one’s views on the arms embargo, we very much want to maintain all those sanctions, so any changes would rely on a subsequent amendment to the overall sanctions package. There has been no request from France to the EU to change that position at this stage. We will keep all the options under review, but we have made no decision to change our policy on arms supplies, as things stand.

Peter Hain: But surely the Foreign Secretary must accept that his specific and chilling refusal to rule out western, British-backed military activity in Syria will make a disastrous policy even more disastrous. Nobody can win this civil war. Assad’s savage regime has the backing of at least a third of the population, including Christians and other minorities. The conflict is also a proxy for Sunni versus Shi’a, for Saudi Arabia versus Iran and for the west versus Russia and China. We have to resolve this by political settlement, not by upping the military stakes.

William Hague: I think I made the point a few moments ago that there can only be a political and diplomatic solution. It is also important to point out that no one knows exactly how events in Syria will proceed in the coming months and years. Situations such as the one that arose in Libya last year and the present one in Syria are uncharted territory in international affairs. It is foolish to rule out options when we do not know how the situation will proceed. However, it is right to place huge emphasis on diplomatic and political progress and on humanitarian assistance, as I have done in my statement.

Menzies Campbell: Israel has an unambiguous right to defend itself, but along with such rights go duties, and in this case the duty is to use only proportionate means to effect that defence. Does my right hon. Friend believe that targeted
	assassination, the destruction of civilian infrastructure and the imposition of casualties on women and children is consistent with that duty?

William Hague: Of course all our efforts have to be directed to making sure there is a ceasefire, and only at a subsequent stage could one make the judgment that my right hon. and learned Friend is inviting me to make. I have not shied away from it in the past, as he knows; in fact, during the Lebanon war when we were in opposition, I was very clear about the disproportionality of what happened. In this case, we have to ask ourselves whether the current conflict in Gaza would be taking place without the increase in rocket attacks, which have gone up from 200 in 2010 to more than 1,300 before this conflict began and up to last week. That is clearly an intolerable situation in the south of Israel, so we have to bear that in mind as well.

Louise Ellman: Does the fact that Hamas is committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, that in 2005 Israel removed all its 9,000 settlers and soldiers from Gaza and that that was followed by Hamas firing thousands of rockets from civilian centres in Gaza targeted at Israeli citizens mean that Israel deserves full support in defending its citizens against this aggression?

William Hague: We are rightly critical of Israel when there are civilian casualties, but we have to bear in mind that for Hamas and other groups firing rockets out of Gaza, the sole intention is to cause civilian casualties; that is the entire purpose of what they do. We are right to stress the responsibilities on Israel and the need to stop settlement building and restart the peace process, but also the responsibility on Hamas to renounce violence, to recognise previous agreements and to recognise the right of Israel to exist. Such things would also be immense steps forward in the peace process in the middle east.

Richard Ottaway: Over the weekend, Israel was widely condemned for a military strike on an international media centre in Gaza in breach of the Geneva convention. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it was in fact a base for Islamic Jihad and that the only person who lost their life was its military commander?

William Hague: I have heard that, but I hesitate to confirm the actual fact definitively. Certainly the Israelis explained that, rather than targeting a media centre, they were targeting a different organisation. We have also been in touch with the media organisations concerned. I very much take my hon. Friend’s point.

Gerald Kaufman: Is it not interesting that when Assad lethally represses the Syrian people, he is the bad guy, yet when Netanyahu lethally represses the Palestinian people, he is the goodbye—[Interruption.]I mean the good guy—I wish it was goodbye! Also, when the Syrians respond with brutal force to that repression, they are the good guys, yet when Palestinians respond with brutal force to that repression, they are the bad guys. It is this kind of discriminatory attitude by the international community that will prevent there being peace in the middle east.

William Hague: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I always have a great deal of time and respect for him, although I think that in that question he tends towards a caricature of the situation in the middle east. I do not think that is the attitude of anybody in this House; there are responsibilities on all sides. Our response—the response of the western world—is, yes, to give assistance to the Syrian people, but it is also to give a huge amount of assistance to Palestinians. DFID’s current programme provides £359 million for the Palestinian Authority and for humanitarian assistance, including in Gaza. We are trying to assist everyone in desperate need in the middle east—Palestinians and Syrians.

James Arbuthnot: I draw the House’s attention to my interests as declared in the register. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a world of difference between Hamas, which specifically targets Israeli children, and Israel, which does its best to avoid killing Palestinian children, although both sometimes fail?

William Hague: Yes. As I pointed out a moment ago, it is important to remember that the rockets launched against Israel have no other purpose than to cause civilian casualties. That is the only reason they are fired. It is important to bear that in mind. Of course Israel’s Iron Dome system means that it is able to stop a large part of them, and some rockets are inaccurate in any case, but that is little consolation to the people who have to be within 30 seconds of a shelter in southern Israel. My right hon. Friend thus points out an important difference.

Ben Bradshaw: Is not it the lesson of the last decade that meaningful progress towards a two-state solution is made only when American Presidents in their second term use that freedom to make the huge effort that the right hon. Gentleman says is required. What, then, are he and the Prime Minister doing to persuade Barack Obama that he needs to make such an effort?

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman is broadly right. We have already had that discussion with President Obama earlier in the year, and I have discussed the issue many times with Secretary Clinton and, just a few days ago, with Senator Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The United States must now make its decision. As the re-elected Administration, albeit with many new personnel, is established, they must now take their decisions. Throughout that, the US will hear very clearly from us at every level that this provides an opportunity—perhaps the last opportunity—to push this forward. If that does not happen within a year from now, the US would probably find the votes of many European nations being very different, the process being very different and American leadership of that process being in considerable doubt.

Mark Pritchard: In his statement, my right hon. Friend said that the security of Israel and the security of the region have a direct impact on UK national security and the peace of the whole world. Given that the current diplomatic efforts, and indeed efforts over the last few years, have failed, would he
	consider a new possible solution: an EU security treaty with Israel in return for substantive and meaningful negotiations over land?

William Hague: There is an important role for the European Union and its nations, but for the moment or for the coming months, we must not take our eyes away from the goal of a negotiated two-state solution with the United States playing a leading role. The US still has a unique degree of leverage over all concerned and a particular influence on Israel, so it is important for the Americans to be able to lead such efforts. The EU should act in a way that buttresses and supports those efforts—unless they are not made or come to an end.

Meg Munn: The Foreign Secretary has rightly drawn attention to the impact on children. The 13,000 rockets fired into Israel since 2001 have led to many children and young people suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, while the children in Gaza must fear the terror from the Israeli action and also from Hamas. I urge the Foreign Secretary to redouble his efforts to call for peace, because of the impact of these events on these children’s future, which will be lifelong.

William Hague: Yes, the hon. Lady makes a very important point. That is why we support the current efforts to bring in a ceasefire. I pay tribute again—I referred to it in my statement—to the efforts of the Egyptian Government over the last few days. This is a new Government with a new presidency and a new system of government. Our impression is that the presidency, the Foreign Ministry and other Egyptian agencies have worked together cohesively, talking both to Hamas and Israel to try to bring about a ceasefire. We have to support their efforts.

Julian Lewis: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the greatest stride towards peace was made when President Sadat signed the treaty between Egypt and Israel? Does he share my disappointment at the recent statement by President Morsi of Egypt that the present situation constitutes an act of aggression solely by the Israelis?

William Hague: While that statement is different from what my hon. Friend or I might say about the origins of this, I hope that he will bear in mind the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) about the very constructive role being played by Egypt. My experience, and the Prime Minister’s experience, of meeting President Morsi suggested to us that he wants a peaceful future for his country, that he has not turned against the peace treaty with Israel, and that he knows the importance of building up the economy and society of Egypt and not having conflict on his borders. I think that we should give him the space and time in which to accomplish those things.

David Winnick: No one is trying to justify rocket firing into Israel, but does the Foreign Secretary recognise that Israeli air strikes have caused so many civilian casualties in Gaza that the killing of children—the burning to death of children—should be considered a war crime? As for the overall position, is not the truth of the matter that since the
	state of Israel was created in 1948, and even more since the 1967 war, the Israeli authorities have refused to recognise the legitimate entitlement of the Palestinian people to statehood, dignity and a proper life? That is the real issue that faces the international community now.

William Hague: There have been failings on all sides. I do not want to agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. On other occasions, he has heard me criticise both the Israeli and the Palestinian leaderships from the Dispatch Box for their failure to make progress in the peace process. Many opportunities have been missed by both sides, but it is our job in the international community to try to bring them closer together and to ask for de-escalation rather than inflaming these situations. I will not, therefore, take up his invitation to go down a more dramatic rhetorical path.

Mike Freer: Given that it is firing missiles on civilians while hiding behind civilians, is it not Hamas that is guilty of war crimes?

William Hague: All these terms and accusations are flung around in the world and across the House, and the extreme feelings engendered by these situations are completely understandable. Indeed, we have referred several times to the targeting of civilians by Hamas, and to the way in which they have sometimes shielded themselves behind civilians. I stress, however, that our job now is to de-escalate and use the language of de-escalation, and to encourage that to happen over the coming hours.

Mike Gapes: It is welcome that the British Government followed France in recognising the Syrian national coalition, but merely saying that it is the sole legitimate representative does not make it so. What action is being taken to deal with the problem that has already arisen in Aleppo, where groups have rejected the coalition’s leadership, and to secure international recognition for it as well as its effectiveness in Syria?

William Hague: I think that there will be further international recognition for the coalition—I think that, for example, other EU countries will recognise it, in stages—and that growing international recognition will in turn lead to an increase in practical support. I have announced several areas in which we would increase our own practical support and channel it through the coalition, and if other countries do the same, that will steadily add to their credibility inside and outside Syria. Obviously we cannot control or dictate the reactions of all groups in Syria, but from all that we understand, the coalition has received a warm welcome from many people there. I do not think that we shall see a better attempt to create an umbrella opposition group, and I think that we should therefore get behind this one.

David Burrowes: Egypt surely has a key role to play, given its proximity to Gaza and its Government’s proximity to Hamas. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore continue to encourage it to broker a genuine ceasefire, and, together with others in the region, to enforce both the ceasing of fire and, crucially, the ceasing of the supply of weapons to terrorists?

William Hague: Yes, we are fully engaged in that process. I have spoken to my Egyptian counterpart twice during the last few days, and the Prime Minister spoke to President Morsi at the weekend. We are strongly encouraging Egypt in that regard. However, it has more than a responsibility to try to bring about a ceasefire. In a diplomatic context, in the aftermath of the tragic sequence of events over the last week, there is an opportunity to work with Israel to deal with security challenges as well as improving the overall situation in Gaza, and I hope that Egypt will move on to that.

William McCrea: Will the Foreign Secretary encourage fairer and more balanced reporting of the middle east conflict, rather than the anti-Israel bias that seems to be featuring in the news? Will he do all that he can to ensure that Hamas stops hiding behind the civilian population, deliberately putting them in the line of fire and in danger of death, and using that as political propaganda?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated well the fact that serious accusations can be made on all sides. Hamas certainly seems, as so often, to have had little regard for civilian life. As for the question of balanced reporting, it is not in my remit or in the power of Her Majesty’s Government, but it is very much to be encouraged.

John Baron: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Israel’s legitimate right to self-defence does not extend to a pre-emptive attack on Iran?

William Hague: My hon. Friend has introduced a different subject, and one on which he has often given his views to the House. He knows from my earlier answers that we have counselled Israel against a military attack on Iran in circumstances in which we are pursuing a twin-track policy of intensified sanctions and negotiations with Iran, and that remains the position.

Simon Danczuk: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that unless the blockade of Gaza is ended, there will be little chance of a permanent end to the violence?

William Hague: More open access into and out of Gaza is an important part of the solution there. That includes access for more normal items of trade as well as people. I made that point briefly in my statement, but I am happy to reiterate it.

Robert Halfon: Since the Israeli withdrawal in 2005, nearly 7,000 missiles have been fired on Israeli towns by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In this year alone, 47,000 tonnes of food and provisions and 300 trucks went from Israel into Gaza. Does my right hon. Friend think that Israel’s response in taking out missile silos in Gaza is proportionate?

William Hague: I will not expand on the answer that I gave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and become involved in defining different degrees of proportionality. I have, I think, laid out clearly the responsibility for precipitating the current crisis—the exchange of fire
	with Hamas that has taken place over the last five days—and I do not want to enter into any finer judgments than that. We would now like an agreed ceasefire between both sides.

Tom Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman gave us an up-to-date account of the involvement of our Department for International Development, along with NGOs, in the relief effort in Syria. Can he give us a similar update on their contribution—it must be a dreadful situation—in the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel?

William Hague: Yes, if the right hon. Gentleman would like me to. DFID’s Palestinian programme is contributing £359 million to—among other things—provide primary education for more than 36,000 children, immunise 2,000 children a year against measles, train and equip the Palestinian police so that they can provide a more professional service, provide basic services for refugees across the region, and help to develop the private sector in order to stimulate the economy. Until 2015, £106 million of that funding is going specifically to UNRWA and one third of that to Gaza.

Martin Horwood: Will the Foreign Secretary congratulate President Morsi of Egypt on his moderating role in this crisis and heed his advice to vote yes to the recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, thereby demonstrating some small progress for those Palestinians who are promoting the path of diplomacy, not violence?

William Hague: This is the debate that we entered into earlier, and I have had that discussion with my Egyptian counterpart a couple of times already, understandably. There are wholly legitimate points of view about that. My judgment is that it is important to do whatever is necessary to support a return to negotiations, and that a vote now in the General Assembly does not support that. That is the Government’s considered view. We will continue to discuss with our European partners how we should respond to any actual vote.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Foreign Secretary have a word with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is apparently in Ramallah today, and who visited southern Israel yesterday? Will he suggest to the Under-Secretary that he should go on to visit Gaza, and talk to the people of Gaza and their elected representatives and examine for himself the destruction Israeli war planes have wrought on the people of Gaza? That would be a way of promoting the unity of all the Palestinian people, which is what the Foreign Secretary says he wants. This opportunity should not be missed or wasted.

William Hague: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is very busy in the region today. I am not going to comment on his programme for security reasons, but he has not only visited southern Israel, and he is in the west bank today. He has now had his meeting with President Abbas. I am not going to speculate about where my hon. Friend will go next, but of course we will want to understand the humanitarian needs in Gaza and the
	extent of the damage that has been caused, as well as alleviate that problem for people in Gaza and in southern Israel.

Jessica Lee: First, I declare an interest: I have just returned from a trip to Israel and the west bank. Israel has made genuine efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to Gaza, to maintain the fabric of civilian life there, and that has been done despite the current hostilities and increased number of rocket attacks. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his Israeli counterpart as to the importance of this humanitarian support?

William Hague: My Israeli counterpart frequently makes that point, and it is true that Israel sends that humanitarian support. Nevertheless, I think there are additional steps that it is important for Israel to take. We have been talking about some of them, including freer access for others into and out of Gaza. That must be part of any longer-term solution for Gaza.

Luciana Berger: What conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Home Office to ensure that relations between different British communities are not adversely affected by the violence in the middle east?

William Hague: Since one of our Ministers of State, Baroness Warsi, has a DCLG hat as well, we are in constant—hourly—discussion about such matters. They are important, of course, but it is also important to pursue the right foreign policy for the United Kingdom bearing in mind the whole interests of the UK, and that is how I regard these subjects as Foreign Secretary.

James Clappison: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the aim of our diplomacy is not only to reduce these rocket attacks but to bring them to an end? Surely, we in this country would not have put up with hundreds of long-range missiles being fired into our centres of population? If some of those rockets had landed in Fife, even the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) might have had something to say about that.

William Hague: I am sure he would, although he is no longer in the Chamber and I will not put words into his mouth. My hon. Friend makes a wholly legitimate point, but at the same time we must, of course, recognise that it is important to bring the entire conflict to an end, of which the violence in the last week is another tragic symptom. It is important for Israel to address itself to doing that, as well as to the immediate security of its population.

Andy Slaughter: Palestinian victims of Israeli atrocities are so many that they often go unnamed. I would like to name the four youngest members of the El Dallo family: Sara, 7; Jamal, 6; Yusef, 4; and Ibrahim, 2. They were four of nine family members and of 26 children killed in Israeli air strikes in the last week. Does the Secretary of State accept that hundreds more Palestinian children will die, as they did
	four years ago, if he and other western leaders do not put more pressure on Israel not to launch a ground assault?

William Hague: I think I have made very clear what we believe about a ground assault, and in my statement I briefly gave several reasons why that would lose Israel a great deal of international support. The Israelis are very clear about the message they are receiving from the United Kingdom on that. The best thing we can do to avoid more names being added to that list is to support those trying to bring about an agreed ceasefire, but that has to be a ceasefire on both sides, of course, and it has to include an end to rocket fire against Israel as well as an end to Israeli military operations.

Gordon Henderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it easy to call for Israel to show restraint from the safety of this Chamber, but showing such restraint is difficult for those living with the daily threat of seeing their family and friends wiped out by the rockets fired from Gaza?

William Hague: That is true, of course. We heard earlier about the need for balanced media reporting. Some of the recent media reporting has brought out what a terrifying experience the current situation is for people in southern Israel as well as for people in Gaza. It is important to understand that, and to direct ourselves to bringing this situation to an end.

Caroline Lucas: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that his repeated claim that Hamas bears principal responsibility for the current crisis is gravely misleading, as it completely ignores the five-year blockade Israel has put on Gaza, which the UN has called a policy of collective punishment? It is illegal under international law. What more will he do to put pressure on Israel to lift the blockade?

William Hague: I have already addressed the need to do that. I hope the hon. Lady heard that, but I also hope she is clear that if there had not been rocket fire—and an increase in rocket fire—in recent days and weeks, we would not now be debating this situation or the deaths of so many people on either side, so I think she should think again about who is misleading people about that.

Mr Speaker: I took the use of the word “misleading” by the hon. Lady a moment ago to be a reference to inadvertent misleading. I am sure she would not suggest the Foreign Secretary would seek knowingly to mislead the House. We do not entertain such thoughts in this Chamber.

Guto Bebb: Does my right hon. Friend have any information on the supply of sophisticated weaponry to Hamas from the Iranian regime?

William Hague: I do not have any information I can give the House of Commons on that, but I do believe Iran is involved in sending weapons to Hamas, as I mentioned on the television a couple of days ago. That contributes further to this type of crisis, of course, instead of turning people’s minds to a negotiated settlement and a peaceful way forward, and Iran should desist from that.

Stella Creasy: The Foreign Secretary will no doubt be aware of the understandable concerns of many about the nature of Israel’s response to the rocket attacks, but may I press him to say something more about an issue that many of my constituents are concerned about, and to which the shadow Foreign Secretary alluded: the growing crisis in the Gaza hospitals, and whether they are able to cope with the number of casualties they are seeing?

William Hague: Those hospitals, particularly UNRWA health centres and food distribution centres, benefit from the support of some of the DFID money I was talking about earlier, and which has been established for several years. My information is that at the moment the majority of those health centres and food distribution centres are managing to operate, and valiant attempts are made to continue that, of course. We will watch what is happening very closely, however. We are in touch with the situation, and I know my DFID colleagues are following it very closely as well.

James Morris: I recently visited Sderot and Ashdod as part of a pioneering cricket tour to Israel, the purpose of which was to bring together Israeli and Palestinian children in the pursuit of peace, but I also saw at first hand the anxiety felt by citizens in southern Israel about the persistent threat from Hamas rockets. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any sovereign country would feel a duty to protect its own citizens from such a threat?

William Hague: Yes, of course that is right. I read about the cricket tour, and I applaud that initiative. If cricket can be brought to Israel, peace can be brought to the middle east. It gives us hope for the future. Any nation will wish to protect its own citizens against attack, of course, but at the same time any nation must try to ensure that there is long-term security and peace, so it is very important that Israel does that, as I mentioned a few moments ago.

Mark Durkan: In equally condemning terrorising violence against civilians, whether they are in southern Israel or in Gaza, we cannot all subscribe to the hierarchy of blame offered by the Foreign Secretary for the immediate crisis. On the UN resolution, which is a modest proposal from Palestine, does the Secretary of State not believe that if time is running out for a two-state solution, it is time that the international community took the chance to create more of a semblance of a two-state process?

William Hague: As I explained earlier, that is a completely acceptable argument. The frustrations are intense and there has been completely inadequate progress in recent years. We have to judge what is the best hope for that now, and I do not believe that a debate and vote on a resolution at the General Assembly will improve matters. If it happens, we will do everything we can to try to make it improve matters but it will make things more difficult for the US Administration and possibly for the Israeli Government, whatever their intentions, to engage in the peace process over the coming months. That is why at this moment—not for ever—I counsel against it.

Sarah Teather: I visited Gaza in early 2009 with other Members of the House in the weeks following Operation Cast Lead. The evidence of destruction and misery that I saw there was almost indescribable. May I urge the Foreign Secretary not just to warn Israel against a ground invasion but to condemn those plans in the strongest possible terms?

William Hague: Following the conversations we have had with Israel at many levels and following what I and many other Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government in other western countries have said, Israel is in no doubt about the opinion in the western world. At the same time, our greatest effort is supporting the efforts to bring about a ceasefire so that any such plans for a ground invasion become academic.

Lisa Nandy: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me that there will be no solution to this appalling and tragic situation if any side feels that it can act with impunity? In particular, where Israel’s recent actions are found to have breached international law and fallen far, far short of the UN convention on the rights of the child, to which it is a signatory, what will he do to ensure that it is held accountable?

William Hague: We must bear in mind at all times the need to try to bring about a settlement in the whole region. The hon. Lady is right to refer to this, as it is important to abide by international humanitarian law. That is one of the specific points I have made to the Israeli Foreign Minister in my conversations with him over the past few days. Of course, we will have to judge what happens after that and after any breaches of humanitarian law when we have the evidence of those things. It is also very important for other organisations, including Hamas and militant groups, even to begin to think about international humanitarian law, something of which they have taken no notice so far.

Nigel Adams: What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the involvement of Egypt in supplying weapons to Hamas and other terrorist organisations?

William Hague: I reiterate what I said earlier: I think Egypt is playing a very constructive role and is wholeheartedly behind efforts to bring about a ceasefire. I pay tribute to the Egyptian Government for that and do not want to say anything that cuts across it.

Anas Sarwar: Surely the Foreign Secretary sees the double standards in his statements. The only way that the UK will be seen as an honest peacemaker in the middle east will be if we treat every life as equal, irrespective of religion or nationality—every British or American life as equal to every Iraqi life and every Israeli life as equal to every Palestinian life. Although I condemn the rocket attacks into southern Israel, surely the principal reason behind this ongoing conflict is an ongoing illegal occupation and an ongoing siege and blockade in Gaza. Twice the Foreign Secretary has been asked what the humanitarian response is from the UK Government and twice he has told us about the ongoing support that we give on an annual basis. What support have the Government given in this specific week to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza?

William Hague: I very much agree that all lives are of equal value to us in our society and in this Parliament. That is absolutely right. Of course, we stress, as I did in my statement, the importance of more open access to Gaza and of stopping illegal settlements. The hon. Gentleman asked for a balanced approach, or for no imbalance, and it is right to call for those things. If we are doing those things, it is also right to assign blame or responsibility when it belongs elsewhere and not to give a totally one-sided picture the other way. On the humanitarian side, the help goes in every week but my colleagues in the Department for International Development have a budget of several hundred million pounds going in to help Palestinians. If the evidence is there for them to change or adjust that budget, they will look into that.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I would like to accommodate several more colleagues, but I shall have a better chance of doing so if hon. and right hon. Members would now confine themselves to single short supplementary questions without preamble, and we will have comparably succinct replies, as ever, from the Secretary of State.

Matthew Offord: According to article 51 of the United Nations charter, Israel’s actions are in self-defence. May I therefore urge the Foreign Secretary and this Government to provide support to Israel in her sovereign right to defend her people?

William Hague: Some are not happy about it, but I have been clear about where the principal responsibility for this sequence of events lies. We also must be clear about the need to make progress more generally in the peace process and on Gaza. I am sure that that is the right position for us to uphold.

Jim Shannon: What help have or can the British Government, either alone or in tandem with the United States Administration, give to Israel to ensure that the iron dome defence system that gives security to sections of Israel can be delivered for vulnerable parts of Israel that are not at present protected by a defence system?

William Hague: Israel, as I understand it, receives a good deal of help from the United States on its iron dome system, and it is American technology that has made that possible. The United Kingdom is not involved in that and I do not see any need for the UK to become involved. Israel and the United States have worked on it successfully together.

Bob Blackman: It is now clear that far from it being homemade rockets that are being sent from Gaza, these are serious missiles supplied by Iran. What action is my right hon. Friend taking internationally to stop the resupply from Iran or anyone else to Gaza so that Israel can feel less threatened?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right and it is clear, particularly in the case of longer range rockets, that they are coming from elsewhere. I mentioned earlier the involvement of Iran and of course we encourage all countries that might be transit routes for such weapons—whether they are Iranian weapons going into Syria,
	Gaza or Lebanon—to live up to their international responsibilities and stop the transfer of such weapons. We will intensify those efforts.

Sandra Osborne: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that in seeking to discourage a vote on observer status at the UN, he is undermining those Palestinians who seek a peaceful solution and bolstering Hamas and other extremists?

William Hague: What I am calling for in conjunction with that is a major effort by the United States and European countries to drive forward the peace process. That very much has at its heart strengthening Palestinian moderates and saying to Israel that this is a Palestinian leadership with which it can do business in our judgment. Although there is a legitimate difference of view and argument about tactics, I believe that that is the right way to go about it.

Paul Uppal: I refer to my interest in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have just spent a week in Israel and I came back and spoke to Israelis and Palestinians alike. Despite prejudices in this House, I can assure hon. Members that everybody to whom I spoke has an absolute thirst for peace, but one of the greatest obstacles to peace is the Israeli dilemma of how to trade off intangibles for tangibles. Israel will happily give up land, but how can it have guaranteed security and peace?

William Hague: Of course, this is one of the challenges and the widespread perception in Israel. However much they might want peace, some Israelis argue that peace is not available. That is the importance of giving the support we give to the Palestinian Authority and of trying to ensure that progress is made in the coming months. As I was arguing a moment ago, there might not be a better Palestinian leadership for Israel to come to a peace agreement with than the current one.

Cathy Jamieson: Under normal circumstances the hospitals and medical facilities in Gaza operate without essential supplies, and that has been exacerbated in the past week. What efforts have the UK Government made to ensure that essential medical equipment and supplies reach Gaza urgently?

William Hague: Earlier I gave the information that I have about the operation of health centres as well as food distribution centres. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has just left the House, but she heard all the comments that other hon. Members have made. If we think it is necessary for the United Kingdom to do more on that, do not worry—the United Kingdom will certainly do so.

Alec Shelbrooke: Do not my right hon. Friend’s comments about Iran supporting Hamas illustrate starkly the threat to Israel of an emboldened Hamas and Hezbollah if an anti-Semitic Iran becomes a nuclear armed power?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. It is very important to prevent wider proliferation in the middle east and for Iran’s nuclear programme to be solely for peaceful
	purposes. That is the purpose of the negotiations that we are engaged in, as well as the sanctions that we are applying to Iran. My hon. Friend reinforces the importance of this very well.

Mark Hendrick: In his response to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the Foreign Secretary declined to say what he felt was proportionate. When an organisation such as Hamas gets international sympathy and support, and unprecedented support in the region, does he not think Israel’s approach is a mistake, and if so, is he willing to say so?

William Hague: I have made very clear my views about a ground incursion, but I have also said many times that Israel is making a mistake through settlement building, through not easing access into Gaza and through not, so far, making a more decisively advantageous proposition to the Palestinians about a two-state solution than they have made in recent years. So we are very clear about all of that and very clear about mistakes that have been made. Now we have to bring an end to the mistakes and make progress on a two-state solution before it is too late.

Rehman Chishti: On the Syrian opposition group and recognition, what discussions have been held with the United States to get it to recognise the opposition group? So far the United States has refused to recognise the group.

William Hague: The United States has so far used different wording from that which I used today. It has talked about the coalition being a legitimate representative of the Syrian people. It has not yet gone as far as we have, or France, Turkey or the Gulf states. It is for the United States to decide over the coming days or weeks but I believe, as I said, that other countries will add to the recognition that we have given today, and I hope that in due course the United States will be one of them.

Stephen Doughty: I would be grateful if the House would note my recent employment with Oxfam. The Foreign Secretary will no doubt be aware that in the Cast Lead operation four years ago, there was significant damage to UN facilities and the operations of other humanitarian agencies in Gaza. What conversations have he and the Secretary of State for International Development had with the head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and other humanitarian agencies in the past week about the continued functioning of their operations?

William Hague: May I be the first across the Floor of the House to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on arriving in the House of Commons? I speak as someone who won a by-election for the governing party many years ago, although in my case there were not very many at that time. I welcome him to the House and so quickly speaking in the House. The issue that he identifies is important and other hon. Members have raised it. Ministers at the Department for International Development are in constant touch with UNRWA and with this problem. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is in
	the region now, is forming his own assessment of the situation in Gaza, and I will make sure that those contacts are properly followed up over the coming days.

Robin Walker: The blame game in the middle east can be taken back tens, hundreds, even thousands of years, but it will never bring us closer to peace. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that our focus now must be on an immediate ceasefire and ensuring humanitarian access so that we can end the unacceptable toll in civilian lives on both sides?

William Hague: Yes, we do need that, but we need a ceasefire that works, a ceasefire on both sides—that means an end to rocket attacks on Israel, as well as an end to Israeli military operations—and, of course, the proper humanitarian access of which we have all spoken.

Michael McCann: The pictures on last night’s television of Palestinian children being put in graves is an abomination, but does the Secretary of State concede that the firing of rockets from Gaza means that the lives of innocent Palestinians have been used as pawns on the jihadist and Hamas chessboard, and that the only game in town must be an intensified effort for peace talks?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman puts it very well and places responsibility quite broadly for those tragic deaths. He is right to do that.

Philip Hollobone: One hundred per cent. of Hamas’s rocket arsenal is delivered across the Egyptian-Gaza border. Over the past year Egypt has lost control over a lot of the increasingly lawless Sinai. Is there any realistic prospect at all of Egypt securing its border with the Gaza strip?

William Hague: My hon. Friend draws attention to a very important issue. When I met President Mursi a couple of months ago for the first time, we discussed security in the Sinai. It is crucial for Egypt to ensure that there is such security, and I believe that this situation and other incidents that have happened over recent weeks demonstrate clearly the need for that. Now it is extremely important for Egypt to attend to that, as well as to bring about the ceasefire for which we are calling.

Eilidh Whiteford: Yesterday, 38 aid agencies asked for the help of the international community to put pressure on to get the crossings into Gaza open so that essential humanitarian supplies—clean water, food and medical supplies—could get through. I acknowledge that the Foreign Secretary has acknowledged the role of the blockade in this conflict, but notwithstanding the responsibilities on both sides for the recent escalation, does he believe that the actions of Israel have had a disproportionate impact on civilians?

William Hague: The hon. Lady invites me to get into the proportionate/disproportionate debate, which I am not going to take any further, but she makes a very important point about humanitarian access and what aid agencies have called for. The Government will pursue that in our contacts with Egypt and with Israel, and my colleagues
	in the Department for International Development will look particularly at whether further British assistance is required.

Angela Watkinson: Given the volume of rockets that have been fired from Gaza on to civilian targets in Israel over a very long period indeed, and given the cost of intercept missiles, does the Foreign Secretary agree that maintaining a purely defensive strategy in Israel is neither effective nor economically sustainable?

William Hague: Clearly, such a strategy has not succeeded in reducing the number of rocket attacks. That has gone up over a long time, although it has protected many Israelis from the consequences of those rocket attacks. As we have said before and as I said in my statement, there is no military solution to the problem. There is only a political solution, and that is for the Israeli leaders, the Egyptian leaders and Palestinian leaders to concentrate on very hard over the coming weeks and for us to support them in doing so.

Jim Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary earlier mentioned the fact that the window of opportunity was closing for a two-state deal. Is that because Israel will not lift the sanctions on the Palestinians and it would be impossible for Israel to dismantle the settlements?

William Hague: Certainly, the more settlements are constructed, yes, the harder it becomes for anyone to envisage a two-state solution working. That is the heart of the argument, particularly the expansion of settlements in east Jerusalem, which of course makes it harder for Jerusalem to be the shared capital of both states, as all of us envisage, in an eventual settlement of this issue. So yes, we are on the same lines.

Bob Russell: As the international community has failed the Palestinian people for the past 64 years, perhaps a new approach is required. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore contact the Jewish Voice for Peace based in Oakland, California? Perhaps its programme could be a catalyst for a peaceful future for Israel and Palestine.

William Hague: I will have a look at that. I have a lot of people to contact but if the hon. Gentleman gives me the details—he is looking rather mischievous about this, so I am not quite sure what is entailed—I will, as always, give due care and attention to his ideas.

William Bain: What discussions has the Foreign Secretary held with Secretary Clinton over Egypt’s role in brokering a comprehensive ceasefire agreement? Might such an agreement deal with issues such as border crossings and trade between Gaza and Egypt, which would help reduce Gaza’s economic dependence upon Israel?

William Hague: Yes, we are in close touch with the United States. I have regular discussions with Secretary Clinton and we are to have another very shortly. The wider solution for Gaza, not just an immediate ceasefire, is of
	course important. It includes the role of better access to and from Gaza and greater assurance that weapons are not going into Gaza—there are many aspects. We will discuss that with the United States as well as Egypt directly.

John Howell: I declare an interest: I have just returned from a visit to the Palestinian authorities and to Israel. The Foreign Secretary’s statement that Hamas bears the principal responsibility for the crisis and could end the conflict by stopping bombardment of Israel was heard attentively, but does he agree with me that the use by Hamas of long-range imported missiles capable of striking Jerusalem has made that much more difficult to achieve?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. It is clear that the armoury of rockets in Gaza has changed since the time of Operation Cast Lead; there are now longer range rockets, which have been launched at Tel Aviv and, in at least one case, at Jerusalem. Of course, that is an escalation of the threat to Israel, but it only underlines the importance of taking forward all the work on a negotiated peace and settlement in the middle east, which is supported across the House.

Seema Malhotra: In August this year, an UNRWA report found that Gaza would be unliveable by 2020. Already, because of the blockade, 44% of Palestinians in Gaza are food-insecure, and 80% are aid recipients. What recent conversations has the right hon. Gentleman had with his Israeli counterparts about increasing the flow of basic humanitarian goods into Gaza, and ensuring that that continues to increase, to meet the needs of the Palestinian people?

William Hague: That is a constant part of discussions with Israeli leaders. Of course we have put the case for that, and indeed more than that, by saying not only that humanitarian relief is required, but that a different and more open approach is required. In fact, tight restrictions often serve the purposes of Hamas, rather than directly the purposes of Israel, and sometimes help to fund Hamas through its operation of smuggling and the use of tunnels into Gaza, for example. We will continue to have those conversations, I hope more successfully, in future.

Jason McCartney: The civilian populations of southern Israel and Gaza desperately need an immediate and effective ceasefire: that means no rockets, no air strikes and no land invasion. What hopes does my right hon. Friend have of the US Secretary of State being able to broker that immediate and lasting ceasefire?

William Hague: There are some hopes. I do not want to overstate them, because of course these things can go wrong. Anything at any moment can go wrong, endangering the process through some event on the ground or breakdown in what either side seeks from a ceasefire, but the UN Secretary-General has put energy behind this; Egypt is playing a strong role, which the visit of Secretary Clinton will bolster; and all of us in the EU countries are determined—a lot of effort is being put behind the ceasefire proposal.

Thomas Docherty: May I press the Foreign Secretary to say more about future consultations with his fellow EU Ministers on Gaza, and what consultations he is having with the Quartet’s special representative to the region?

William Hague: We had the whole EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting yesterday, from which the conclusions are published. It made calls very much in line with what I have said to the House in terms of the need to end rocket attacks on Israel, but also stated our support for a negotiated ceasefire. The whole of the European Union spoke clearly together on that yesterday. Of course, we also regularly discuss matters with Tony Blair, the Quartet’s envoy to the Palestinians: most recently, I spoke to him about this nine or 10 days ago, and my colleagues are in constant touch with him. We will see whether there can be a role for the Quartet in the coming weeks in attempts to restart negotiations on the peace process.

David Ward: The Secretary of State has made clear his belief that Hamas bears the principal responsibility for the start of the crisis, but does he not accept that many people believe that the blockade of Gaza amounts to an act of aggression perpetrated by the state of Israel against the Palestinians every single day, whether a rocket or a shot is fired? How does he believe that assigning blame for the present situation will help the Government to work with both sides to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

William Hague: I think we have to speak clearly about these things. The hon. Gentleman is right that restrictions and blockades are part of the problem, not part of the solution, and we are always clear about that. The occurrence of yet another crisis in Gaza adds to those arguments, but we also have to be clear that the firing off of hundreds of rockets at Israel certainly does not help and is no tactic designed to get rid of any blockade or restrictions; it is totally counterproductive in that respect, as well as killing civilians. We should not hesitate to criticise that just because we want a wider solution.

Diana Johnson: Given the blocking stance taken by Russia and China on Syria, have they contributed any money to address the current humanitarian crisis in Syria?

William Hague: Contributions from Russia and China have been very small. I would have to write to the hon. Lady with the details, but they are not so large that I have them immediately in my mind, let me put it that way. We will encourage—I have done so previously—Russia to make a contribution to the UN funds, but the biggest contribution has been from the United States, the second biggest from the EU and the third biggest from the UK—of course we are also contributing to the EU money—so as things stand, the backing is heavily western.

Jonathan Ashworth: The Foreign Secretary said that he did not want to get into a debate about disproportionate or proportionate, but while it is right that we condemn militant rocket attacks, should we not also condemn the loss of innocent lives and particularly children? Regarding the vote at the UN, is
	he wholly convinced that the UK Government, by taking the stance they have taken, do not risk undermining those who want a peaceful solution?

William Hague: That the Government and the whole country deplore the loss of life in Gaza and southern Israel, particularly children, was the first line or second sentence of my statement today, and I reinforce that now. As I think I have explained, the reason why we are so concerned about a vote at the United Nations General Assembly coming now is precisely that we think it will make it more difficult to advance the peace process. We will make every effort to prevent its damaging the peace process, but the likelihood is that it will.

Andrew Love: May I press the Foreign Secretary once again on the importance of ending the blockade if we are to make progress in the peace process? The impact of the blockade on the Palestinian people, in terms of the destruction of their economy, has been mentioned, but there is also an impact on Israel: there is a thriving tunnel economy and most of the weapons currently being used in Gaza come through it. There could be a win-win situation if we can make progress on the issue.

William Hague: I do not think I need pressing very much, because I just made part of that point myself when I talked about the tunnels and the way Hamas, rather than the security of Israel, profits from them through smuggling. For a win-win, there has to be a greater degree of trust and peace on the border, which has eluded us all so far, but if that can be brought about, then yes, there can a very big win-win for all involved.

Mr Speaker: After 23 years in the House, the Foreign Secretary well knows that the fact that a point has been made does not prevent it from being remade, usually on multiple occasions, very eloquently and sometimes at length.

Katy Clark: Mr Speaker, I will try to raise an issue that has not been raised so far. Has the Foreign Secretary been able to assess whether UK-made components are being used in Gaza, as part of Israeli equipment, and what implications do the actions of recent days have for UK military links with Israel?

William Hague: The hon. Lady has raised an issue that no one else raised, which is pretty good going after one hour and 40 minutes, so I thank her for that. As she knows, we have very tight export controls, through our and the EU’s consolidated guidance. We always evaluate any arms export licences against the risks of misuse, of intensifying conflict and of being used for internal repression. That leads us to refuse some export licences for Israel, but to grant others. Of course, any future grant or refusal of licences will be considered against the background of recent events.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Foreign Secretary and colleagues for their assistance, which enabled 65 Back Benchers to take part in 66 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time. I fear that there are points of order, but I am sure that they will be legendarily brief.

Points of Order

Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Legendarily brief though my point of order will be, it is about an anniversary of something that is legendarily long—65 years is a milestone by anyone’s reckoning. Could the House find some way to pass on its congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen on achieving 65 years of wedded bliss?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has just done so, with admirable grace and succinctness. We thank him.

Robert Halfon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the avoidance of doubt, when I asked the Foreign Secretary my question I should have referred Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member  made and subscribed the Affirmation  required by law:
	Lucy Maria Powell, for Manchester Central.

Representation of the People (Members’ Job Share)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

John McDonnell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable representation of a constituency by two persons sharing membership of the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill would introduce job sharing for Members of Parliament. At the outset, let me thank all those who have helped to shape the proposal, particularly Debbi King from Disability Politics UK, the QCs Karon Monaghan and Gordon Nardell and, of course, our House of Commons Clerks for their advice.
	The motivation behind the Bill is to contribute to fulfilling the objective so eloquently set out in the report of the Speaker’s Conference on parliamentary representation in 2010. It stated:
	“Justice requires that there should be a place within the House of Commons for individuals from all sections of society. If anyone is prevented from standing for Parliament by reason of their gender, background, sexual orientation or perceived disability, this is an injustice…While justice is the primary case for widening Parliamentary representation, there would also be real benefits for both Parliament and wider society if the House of Commons were to be more fully representative...We believe that a more representative House of Commons would be a more effective and legitimate legislature.”
	The stark reality is that this House is certainly not fully representative of our society: more than 500 of the 650 MPs are male, so women are seriously under-represented; and there are only a handful of disabled MPs in the House, but there would need to be at least 65 if it was to be representative of disabled people in the population.
	In recent years discussion has taken place about what changes could be made to remove barriers to people who want to become MPs and serve their country in that way. A number of organisations representing people with disabilities have expressed the view that there are some people whose particular conditions means that, although they wish to serve as MPs, they physically would be unable to do so on a full-time basis. Others representing carers and women’s organisations have explained that, although they might wish to serve as MPs, they did not want to give up their caring role and so wanted to combine the two jobs. That included not only parents with young children, but carers of elderly or sick family members. The reality is that the vast majority of carers in our society are still women, so not being able to combine more flexibly caring responsibilities and the role of an MP was seen as an issue that needs to be addressed if we are to secure greater representation of women in Parliament.
	Over the past two decades, Members from both sides of his House and several civil society bodies representing people with disabilities and women have advocated the introduction of job sharing for MPs in order to assist more people with disabilities and more women to become MPs. I recall my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) raising the call in the 1990s. The new generation of Members has taken up the
	cause; my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) have all advocated change. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) summed up the issue eloquently in a recent debate when she said:
	“I have always thought that job shares—potentially having a Cabinet position as a job share—would send a powerful signal, allow women to achieve their best and also recognise the complexity of many of our lives.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 185WH.]
	Many organisations across the political spectrum have urged consideration of job sharing, ranging from the Fabian Women’s Network to Women Liberal Democrats and the Fawcett Society. Two of the major charities that represent people with disabilities in our country, Radar and Rethink, included a call for job sharing in their submissions to the Government’s consultation, “Access to elected office for disabled people.”
	Individuals have tried to stand for election to this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament on a job-share basis but have been barred on the grounds that the current law does not allow it. However, recent legal advice obtained by the Equality and Human Rights Commission has shown that that bar might be open to legal challenge on the grounds of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and various international conventions. In law, public bodies have a legal responsibility to make any reasonable adjustments to their operation to overcome such a bar. Job sharing could be construed as just such a reasonable adjustment.
	Many Members have suggested that job sharing might be fine in principle but that there are real practical problems with its implementation. Let me deal with the practical questions. The Bill would be an enabling Bill establishing the principle of job sharing for MPs and dealing with the key questions of election, voting rights and the death or disqualification of a Member. That would leave further detail of implementation to secondary legislation that would be subject to the approval of the House.
	The Bill proposes that the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 be amended to allow two people who have agreed to a sharing arrangement to stand for election in a constituency on the basis that, if elected, they would share the representation of the constituency between them and serve in Parliament on that basis. Each of the two Members elected for a constituency would be able to cast a half vote in votes of the House. If the two Members agreed and informed Mr Speaker or the person presiding during a vote, one of them would be able to cast a single vote. Not all the detail about the operation of the process are suitable to be addressed in primary legislation and would usually be the subject of secondary legislation or changes to the Standing Orders of the House.
	Let me deal with some of the main questions that have been asked by Members about the practicalities of the proposal. Would the two job sharers have to be from the same party? It is proposed that that would be the case, and that would be covered in secondary legislation. What would happen if the job sharers disagreed on an issue and wished to vote accordingly? As the job sharers entered into a sharing arrangement before the election and were from the same party, one would expect them not always to agree on votes—I admit that finding a job
	share might be difficult at times. However, where there is a difference, they can each exercise their right to use their half vote. Frankly, single Members are often in two minds about something and end up abstaining.
	What would happen if one of the job sharers left the party under whose banner he or she was elected? At present, there is no provision for forcing a by-election when a Member crosses the Floor of the House, but that is something Members might want to examine. It is not proposed in this Bill, but it would need to be taken into account by electors at a subsequent election. What would happen if one of the job sharers resigned, died or was disqualified? Because the job sharers were elected on the basis of a job-share arrangement, both would be treated as having ceased to be MPs.
	Another question is what would happen in situations where electors were happy with the performance of one of the job sharers but not with the other and therefore would not want to vote. The job sharers would be standing as a team; that would be the job-sharing arrangement. The elector would still have one vote and be unable to split it, but would have to decide, in casting that vote, whether, on the basis of his or her overall judgment of their performance, the job-sharing team worked and whether he or she would vote for that arrangement in future. To be frank, there is very little difference between that and what happens at the moment, because electors will often take the view that because the person has stood for a party while, at times, not necessarily supporting the party line, they want to vote for the individual rather than the party.
	What would happen if one of the job sharers became a Minister and were covered by collective responsibility? A job sharer would be able to fulfil a ministerial role to the extent of the time that they had to devote to the role on a job-share basis, and in appointing Ministers the Prime Minister would take that into account. This could, and eventually would, lead to job sharing for Ministers. With regard to collective responsibility, the job sharer assuming ministerial responsibilities would naturally cast his or her half vote in line with that requirement.
	Would it be more expensive to have two Members per constituency? No, because the job sharers would share offices, facilities and staff. The parliamentary expenses of job-sharing MPs would be managed by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority IPSA under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 in exactly the same way as for a single MP.
	Right the way across our society, in virtually every walk of life, in the public and private sectors and in most professions, job sharing is now a reality, and it has proved to be successful for the organisations and individuals concerned. In fact, there is substantial evidence that job-sharing arrangements are more productive than the employment of individuals. This House should not be the last bastion standing against a measure that could increase access for women and, in particular, for carers and people with disabilities in being able to stand as Members of Parliament. We in this House should explore every opportunity we can to assist in promoting greater access for people who would like to serve as MPs. This would not be positive discrimination but simply the introduction of a practical administrative change to facilitate wider participation.
	As I said, the main thrust of this proposal has come from organisations that represent carers and people with disabilities. It is a minor, modernising reform that could improve the representativeness of the House of Commons. If it allowed just one more person with disabilities, one more woman or one more carer to have the opportunity to serve their country in this House, it would be a beneficial move.

David Nuttall: Every so often I hear a proposal that is so outrageous and unusual that I have to pinch myself to check whether I have heard it correctly, and I found this to be one such. There are many reasons why I believe that the idea is unworkable—so many that I fear that the 10-minutes rule will not provide sufficient time for me to do justice to them in this debate. I will therefore keep my remarks very brief.
	This Bill is supposedly about increasing diversity. I do not accept that as a middle-aged white male I am unable to represent others who do not fit that description, be they female, from an ethnic minority, gay or disabled. It is nonsense to suggest that the composition of this House must exactly mirror the composition of the United Kingdom. I very much doubt that someone such as Winston Churchill would have ticked many boxes for diversity, and yet few would dispute that he spoke for the whole of our nation at the most difficult of times. We do not increase true representation simply by having people who look like others.
	Nothing that I have heard today suggests that this idea, even if it could ever be made into a practical possibility, would produce the desired result. The plan to have a Parliament made up of Tweedledees and Tweedledums would open up a constitutional can of worms—and for what? For example, what if two heterosexual white middle-aged barristers decided that it would be quite a nice idea if they both shared the job of being an MP while continuing their practice at the Bar? How would that help to increase the diversity of this House? We hear much criticism of politicians who have jobs outside Parliament, yet this Bill would cement the practice into law and make it the norm.
	If the Bill is supposed to be a measure to help disabled people, I fear that it is simplistic and, indeed, patronising to many current and former Members who have performed and continue to perform their duties with such distinction. Are the advocates of the Bill really suggesting that just because someone is female, black or disabled they are capable of doing only half the job on a part-time basis?
	We have heard that Members would have half a vote each or a joint vote if there were agreement, but what if there were no agreement? What if both MPs took a different view and cancelled each other out, leaving their constituents unrepresented? But of course, as Members on both sides of the House will appreciate, our role is about much more than just voting. Who would constituents contact with a problem—one of them or both of them? What would happen with this dual approach as regards Select Committee membership? Would one half of the job-sharing duo hear some of the evidence and then the other half hear the rest, so that we finished up with
	neither of them having heard it all? Indeed, how would it be decided who was elected to serve on the Committee in the first place?
	Next, what about debates in this House? Would both Members be entitled to be called? Would both be entitled to table questions? Would every constituency in the country be required to have two Members? If it applied only to some constituencies, then surely those with two Members would have an advantage over those with a single Member. As everyone will be aware, with 650 Members there is already insufficient space in this Chamber for them all to have a seat. How on earth would we cope with double that number?
	As some Members may be aware, I think that it is particularly important that private Members’ Bills are properly scrutinised. Therefore, if I were to represent a constituency as one half of a job-sharing duo with someone else who shared my concern that private Members’ Bills should be properly scrutinised, we could together, on behalf of just one constituency, debate one Bill for a very long time.
	Would those sharing the same role have to be from the same party? What would happen if two people from the same party were elected and then one of them decided to change parties? How would that work? Would there have to be some form of electoral pre-nuptial agreement? Would that become the norm? What would happen if the agreement were breached? Who would adjudicate in the event of a dispute?
	I am not convinced by the “two for the price of one” argument. It is hard to see how two people would not, at some point, need extra staff or office space. They would need a bigger taxpayer-funded residence in the capital or even require two separate residences in London if they represented a constituency some way away from Westminster. At the very least, there would be two sets of travel expenses.
	I think that most people want to see fewer politicians, not more. This proposal runs the risk of being the thin end of the wedge. I dread to think what would happen if the number of Members of the European Parliament were doubled, and how long would it be before we had double the number of councillors, elected mayors or, indeed, police and crime commissioners?
	So far, despite considerable media attention, this proposal does not appear to have attracted much public support. Despite a letter to The Guardian in September, signed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and more than 40 other influential people, urging people to sign an e-petition on this very subject, when I last checked it had only 403 signatories. Perhaps after today’s debate others will be tempted to sign it and, if it reaches the 100,000 barrier, who knows what will happen? We may return to debate this whole issue again.
	The proposal starts off as a politically correct attempt to increase diversity, but ends up as a potentially dangerous attempt at constitutional meddling that would break the historical link between an MP and their constituency. I do not propose to divide the House on whether the hon. Gentleman should have leave to introduce the Bill, because, in view of the importance of these matters, I think that the House should have the time and the opportunity—ideally over several Friday sittings—to debate them at great length, so that the concerns that I have outlined can be expanded on.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Ordered ,
	That John McDonnell, Dame Anne Begg, Robert Halfon, Lorely Burt, Caroline Lucas, Sheila Gilmore, Mr Virendra Sharma, Meg Hillier, Jeremy Corbyn, Jon Cruddas, Mr Frank Field and Mr Tom Clarke present the Bill.
	John McDonnell accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 91).

HGV Road User Levy Bill

Second Reading

Patrick McLoughlin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	As the House knows, the reason for this Bill is to enable the introduction of a new levy for all heavy goods vehicles weighing 12 tonnes and over that are kept or used on the UK road network. We plan to implement the levy from April 2014 for UK-registered hauliers. Subject to the completion of a procurement process, it will apply to foreign-registered hauliers from the same date.
	We intend the levy to apply to all categories of public roads in the UK and to both UK and foreign-registered HGVs. Vehicles that cause wear and tear to our roads should make a payment that takes that into account. HGVs registered abroad are more likely to carry their weight on fewer axles than UK-registered vehicles, which means that foreign-registered vehicles cause more wear and tear to our roads. It is therefore more unjust that they do not make a contribution towards the maintenance of these roads. They leave the burden to fall entirely on the British taxpayer.

Robert Flello: What about foreign truck drivers who come over with large tanks full of fuel and who do not contribute to the ordinary wear and tear on our roads because they do not pay the fuel duty?

Patrick McLoughlin: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Under this Bill, we will at least charge them something to use British roads—at the moment, they pay absolutely nothing. Although I am not saying that this is the entire answer, we are moving in the right direction.
	Foreign hauliers using roads in the UK have long enjoyed an advantage over our own haulage industry in that they do not pay to use the UK’s road network, while our own hauliers pay to use roads through tolls and other charging schemes when they travel abroad in Europe. For many years all main parties have wanted to introduce a measure to correct that imbalance and I am delighted that this Government are actually doing it.
	I am sure that the House recognises that HGVs play a crucial role in our economy by supplying businesses and servicing customers. More than two thirds of all goods moved within the UK travel by road and, in the main, on HGVs.

Gordon Marsden: The Secretary of State is right to pay tribute to the work done by HGVs in this country but, at a time when UK hauliers and other businesses that make deliveries are suffering economically, will he outline the rationale behind introducing the Bill now? What other things will the Government do to protect UK hauliers from additional costs?

Patrick McLoughlin: The reason for introducing the Bill now is to try to level the playing field and to take action that the previous Government talked about but, I am afraid, never found the time to do anything about.
	I make no apologies for wanting to do this now. I wish it had been done sooner, but at least we are doing it at our first opportunity.
	A key part of the movement of goods is provided by foreign hauliers and the Government recognise the important contributions they make to the economy. They make 1.5 million trips to the UK every each year, and we do not wish to discourage free trade with our partners in other countries. However, it is only right that we ensure that our own haulage industry has a fair chance to compete, and I hope that the Bill goes some way to achieving that. I met some hauliers when I announced the Bill and they said that it would lead to more jobs in this country.
	As colleagues will be aware, any road user charge is subject to the strict conditions set out in the Eurovignette directive, which provides a framework for charging on roads and specifies the maximum daily charge as €11. That is likely to rise to €12 by 2014, which will mean that it should equate to the £10 a day that we intend to charge the largest vehicles that use our roads.
	I also recognise that many trips made by foreign hauliers take longer than one day, so they will also be able to pay the levy for different periods, up to one year. In the case of the largest vehicles, this annual charge will be £1,000. Our estimate of the revenues that will be gained as a result of foreign hauliers paying a charge is between £19 million and £23 million a year. Although that is not enormous, it shows we are doing something that is clearly wanted. That is why the Bill is right. The Government are also committed to introducing other measures—principally vehicle excise duty reductions—that are not part of this Bill to ensure a fairer deal for HGV drivers.
	I will now go through the Bill’s points of interest.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I have a question about something that I genuinely do not understand. The new levies will be welcome, but why will there be a delay, as I understand it—I may be wrong—between their imposition on UK hauliers, who will have to pay first, and on non-UK hauliers?

Patrick McLoughlin: I very much hope that there will not be a delay. As I have said, I intend the levy to be introduced in April 2014, subject to certain procurement measures. Once it is introduced in this country, there will be a reduction of a similar amount in VED charges, so our lorry drivers should not pay anything extra. Foreign drivers will be charged from, I hope, April 2014. I hope that that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Robert Flello: The Secretary of State is being extremely generous with his time. Will he clarify why overseas hauliers are not required to pay for a year up front, but can pay on a daily, weekly or monthly basis? Is there a legislative reason why they cannot be asked to make an annual up-front payment, as with VED?

Patrick McLoughlin: Overseas hauliers will pay in advance of coming to this country. However, asking somebody who is bringing a lorry over for a day to pay for a full year would be quite unfair. We are therefore allowing them to pay daily, weekly or yearly. Most HGV drivers
	who come to this country regularly will find it much more convenient and a lot cheaper to pay for the year than to pay for each individual day. I hope that that clears up the hon. Gentleman’s point.
	The Bill states that HGVs weighing more than 12 tonnes will have to pay a duty of excise levied by the Secretary of State if they are used or kept on a public road within the United Kingdom. It will be known as the HGV road user levy. It will be charged to allow both UK-registered and foreign-registered vehicles to use our roads. The levy applies to all roads in the UK. However, clause 3 provides the power for the Secretary of State to exempt specific roads from the charge by way of statutory instrument, should the need arise.
	Clause 4 sets out the liability for the levy. For HGVs registered in the UK, liability for paying the levy will lie with those in whose name the vehicle is registered and with the person keeping the vehicle. That applies the principle used for vehicle excise duty in section 1 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. That allows for the levy on UK-registered vehicles to be paid at the same time as vehicle excise duty. For non-UK-registered HGVs, the person who holds the Community licence for the vehicle and the person who keeps the vehicle are liable to pay the levy. For both UK-registered and non-UK-registered vehicles, when two or more people are liable to pay the levy, they are jointly and severally liable.
	Clauses 5 and 6 set out the methods of payment for UK-registered and non-UK-registered vehicles. For UK-registered vehicles, the levy will be paid either yearly or half-yearly at the same time as vehicle excise duty. Where appropriate, rebates may be made for vehicles that are stolen or destroyed. The circumstances under which a rebate will be available and the method of calculating the value of a rebate, together with other conditions that must be met to make a claim, are covered in clause 7.
	Some types of rigid vehicle weighing less than 12 tonnes will be exempt from the charge. The Bill also provides powers to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that exempt some categories of HGV from the charge.
	Collection and enforcement of the charge, and related elements, are covered in clauses 9 to 16.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Before the Secretary of State continues, will he clarify one point? Again, I am happy to be corrected. I believe that the Bill sets out that different and potentially higher levels may be charged for weekly or monthly payments for non-UK HGVs. I am not against that. However, will he give a cast-iron guarantee that it does not infringe any anti-discrimination trade provisions within the EU?

Patrick McLoughlin: Yes, we have covered that. The hon. Gentleman is obviously going to take part in this debate and may well find himself on the Public Bill Committee in due course, so he will be able to cover that point in much more detail. I am glad that the Committee is tempting and am sure that the Opposition Whip has made a note of his details. [ Interruption. ] Was the hon. Gentleman making a request to be on the Committee? Perhaps he would like to share it with the House.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Regrettably, I have to inform the House that I am on another Committee.

Jim Fitzpatrick: rose—

Patrick McLoughlin: I give way to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick).

Jim Fitzpatrick: We are grateful to the Secretary of State for trying to recruit our members of the Committee. Much as I would love to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) on it, I think that the Secretary of State should leave it to us and the Whips.

Patrick McLoughlin: I apologise to the Opposition. I was going back to my old territory, which I must not trespass on any longer. I am glad that we have managed to smoke out the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) as to his willingness and availability. I am sure that he gives distinguished service to the other Committee. I must check which it is after this debate.
	The level of vehicle excise duty evasion among UK hauliers is extremely low at less than 1% of vehicles. I have no reason to anticipate that that will change once the levy is introduced. To reduce the administrative burden, the levy will be paid at the same time as VED. We have looked at ways to make the introduction of the levy cost-neutral for UK hauliers. To do that, we will reduce the level of VED to take account of the new charge. That reduction will mean that an estimated 94% of UK hauliers will pay no more than they do at the moment and that 98% will pay no more than an additional £50 a year. Clause 15 allows the Secretary of State to refuse to issue a tax disc when the appropriate levy has not been paid. That will lead to vehicles being unlicensed, which brings the associated penalties of immobilisation, removal and disposal.
	For foreign-registered hauliers, a system will be procured to allow the levy to be paid online before the vehicle enters the country. The levy is based on the length of time, so visiting hauliers will have to select the period for which they will be using UK roads. The options will go from a single day to a year. Once a haulier has paid the right fee, the payment record will be entered automatically into a database, allowing enforcement agencies to check the status of any HGV using UK roads. Information relating to whether a vehicle has paid the levy will be made available publicly.
	There is a risk of foreign hauliers evading the new charge. We will ensure that the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, which will enforce the charge in England, Wales and Scotland, and the Driver and Vehicle Agency, which will enforce the charge in Northern Ireland, are properly equipped to do the job from the start.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I take this opportunity to invite the Secretary of State to join me on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Public Bill Committee at his earliest convenience? Does he foresee any problems in enforcing this wonderful measure due to the Government’s decision to opt out of the EU directive on cross-border enforcement?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sharing with us which Committee he is sitting on. The Committee on this Bill will really miss his attention to detail. I have no reason to believe that there will be any of the problems that he mentions. I have assured myself that what we are doing is wholly within the law and within EU competition rules.
	For non-UK hauliers, there will be no physical sign of the levy having been paid. I believe that paper discs or similar signs would impose a needless burden and open the door to fraud. One of the main methods that we will use to detect vehicles that have not paid the charge is by linking our automatic number plate recognition cameras to the payment database. The use of that technology will enable quicker checks to be made on all HGVs. The power to install such equipment where it does not exist is being introduced in the Bill by amending the Highways Act 1980, the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 and the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 in clause 16.

Robert Flello: What will be the situation if an overseas haulier, either deliberately or by omission, does not purchase a sufficient amount of time? What will happen to the load that a vehicle is carrying if it is seized by one of the agencies?

Patrick McLoughlin: Drivers will know that they have to pay the levy before they come into the country. If they fail to pay, the measures available to the enforcement agencies will be used. I make no apology for that. If they think that they will be here for three days, they should pay for three days.

Michael Connarty: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Patrick McLoughlin: Very briefly.

Michael Connarty: Who will be fined? Will it be the driver or the owner of the vehicle? If it is a hired vehicle, who will suffer the fine?

Patrick McLoughlin: The driver is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle that he is driving is covered. He is in charge of the vehicle.
	The penalty is currently set at £200 and would also be paid in situations where the levy had been underpaid—if someone had declared a lower vehicle weight limit, for example, or the wrong number of axles. Clause 13 inserts the offence into schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which lists the offences for which fixed penalties can be given.
	Where there is frequent non-compliance by a specific vehicle or haulage company, clause 11 will allow for the imposition of a fine up to category 5 on the standard scale—currently £5,000—when someone is convicted of failing to pay the levy. I hope that those measures, coupled with active enforcement, will be seen as a suitable deterrent. Collected fine revenues will be paid into the Consolidated Fund; there was a lot of debate on that when we discussed the Ways and Means resolution.
	I am sure the House will agree that by creating fair competition for the UK haulage industry, the Bill will help finally to put right a wrong. I commend the Bill to the House. It is well overdue and should have been introduced some time ago.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is good to see the Secretary of State in his place for this Second Reading debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and I are delighted to see all three Conservative Ministers from
	the Department for Transport here this afternoon. By leaving a Liberal Democrat Minister in charge of the shop, the coalition Government have made a statement of their trust and confidence—or perhaps he has been given the afternoon off.

Patrick McLoughlin: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), is responding to a debate in Westminster Hall.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am sure he would be under suspicion—no, I beg your pardon—I am sure he will be watched wherever he goes, because of the excellent job that he does as the senior and longest-serving Minister in the Department for Transport, having survived from 2010. I welcome his new colleagues to their places.
	The Secretary of State took something like 18 minutes to move the Second Reading, which is par for the course. According to Hansard from 23 October 2012, column 861, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Lewes, took a minute to move the Ways and Means motion—it actually felt like a lot less than a minute, but he was just procedurally introducing that debate.
	The Secretary of State graciously said that both main parties have wanted to introduce this legislation, and I am sure he is aware that in my speech on the Ways and Means motion, I commended the coalition Government on finding a way to introduce this welcome measure.
	I do not want to detain the House too long, because I spoke for 18 minutes during the debate on the Ways and Means motion—that was my Second Reading speech and is contained in columns 861 to 865 of Hansard from 23 October 2012, should anybody wish to look at it. We covered a lot during that debate, including road exemptions that the Secretary of State is implementing in clause 3(2). We covered hypothecation at length, and I am sure we will return to that in Committee. We spent a bit of time on road safety—particularly cycle safety—and whether the money raised from the scheme could be devoted to that. We also raised the Secretary of State’s discretion in clause 7(9), and asked questions about short sea shipping and moving freight from road to rail—we will continue to ask about that. We asked questions about the contract for running the scheme, the technology involved, and who is making the arrangements. Cross-border enforcement, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) raised a moment ago, was also part of the discussion.
	A number of issues were raised during that debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) answered most of those points, although some were left without a response on the basis that they were detailed matters. I am sure we will look at those in Committee. In principle, however, the Opposition support this measure. We will want to look at the detail when the Bill goes to Committee, but we welcome its arrival to the House this afternoon.

Kwasi Kwarteng: As has been suggested, this Bill has wide cross-party support. I want to make a number of observations on the legislation,
	and commend the coalition Government for getting a grip on this matter and providing an answer. As the Secretary of State suggested, they are trying to create a level playing field between UK haulage businesses and foreign operators. My constituency is within the M25 and has close links with the M3, M4 and Heathrow airport, and transportation and logistics are at the heart of what we do in Spelthorne. As the Member representing that constituency, I am particularly gratified to commend the Bill and recommend that it proceeds. Several haulage firms in Spelthorne have made representation to me, including Cummins haulage in Shepperton and others, and they will be gratified by this measure. I am pleased to recommend and support the Bill in the House today.
	The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) was right to suggest that we will have to consider a number of details in Committee. For now, however, I am happy to lend my support to the Bill, and gratified to see such wide support across the House for this sensible measure.

Louise Ellman: I, too, support this Bill, which is about backing the UK haulage industry and helping to create a level playing field. The impact of the freight industry on the UK economy is strong—the turnover for road freight is £23.9 billion a year; it adds gross value of £10.7 billion a year; and employs 299,000 people in 30,000 enterprises. The sector is important and its impact on the economy is great. The issue concerns disparities in cost between UK-based hauliers and foreign hauliers, and relates to differential fuel and road charging costs, as well as what are often seen as different safety standards, which also impact on cost. The legislation also deals with cabotage, which is the subject of ongoing European Union negotiations. The Transport Committee has taken up this matter—indeed, it first considered it a long time ago in 2009 when we looked at road charges and taxation. The issue was taken up again in 2012, and we returned to it this July with a session of the Transport Committee on road freight.
	In 2008, the Government started to take action and proposed a vignette. Much to the Committee’s regret, however, that was not pursued and no real action was taken. An alternative to taking action on charges was the allocation of an additional £24 million to the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency to enforce safety standards for foreign—and domestic—vehicles. Something was done, although it was not the action for which the Committee was hoping.
	I have one or two points that I hope can be considered today or—perhaps more likely—in Committee. Will the impact of this legislation and the cost for UK hauliers be monitored? We heard in the Transport Committee, and the Secretary of State repeated today, that the overwhelming majority of British hauliers will not face any extra costs. Will that be monitored to ensure that that intention is realised? Will the agencies charged with implementing and enforcing the scheme—DVLA and VOSA—have sufficient resources to do their job properly? Will debts of overseas hauliers be collected in view of the Government’s decision not to sign a cross-border agreement on enforcing debt? What is the current position on cabotage, which I know is giving some concern to UK hauliers? Those points are important although I
	know they will be discussed in Committee. I support this Bill, and agree with the Secretary of State that it has been a long time coming.

Andrew Bridgen: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	I welcome the cross-party support for this Bill which, as the Secretary of State pointed out, has been under discussion for many years. However, if we look at the background to this issue, it is interesting that more than a decade ago, the previous Government looked at a scheme that aimed to restore fairness between UK and foreign lorry drivers. The consultation document published in November 2001 considered two forms of charge—a time-based system and a distance-based system. The former was a cheap and simple solution, and the latter was a complex-to-administer, Big Brother-type charge, which sought to raise yet more revenue from the UK haulage industry. True to form, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), went for the latter.
	More than 10 years later, after much indecision and delay, the coalition Government are finally delivering a workable scheme. Had the previous Government taken note of the Conservative party economic competitive policy group in 2007, which recommended the swift introduction of a lorry user charge, balanced by a reduction in vehicle excise duty, the problem could have been resolved far sooner. We could also have protected our domestic haulage industry from unfair competition earlier, and raised hundreds of millions of pounds for the Exchequer from foreign hauliers. I congratulate the Government on introducing this long-overdue, important legislation.
	I note from the consultation document that a large HGV currently pays between €35 and €46 for a 100-mile Autobahn journey in Germany. That highlights the disadvantages that UK hauliers face against European competition—European HGVs currently make no contribution whatever when they travel on UK roads. The proposals have been welcomed by the haulage industry, which was rightly in favour of the time charge rather than the distance charge. As I have pointed out, the distance charge would have become a stealth tax. The Freight Transport Association says that the Bill delivers on its requests that the scheme should be fair, that it should not add administrative burdens, and that it should come with heavy penalties for non-compliance.
	Clause 3 makes an exception so that the congestion charge zone and the M6 toll can be charged as well as the levy—they are congestion measures. Any future toll roads to be built in the UK are highly likely to be classed as congestion measures, so can the Minister confirm that EU prohibitions on double-charging will not prove to be a problem should any new toll roads be proposed in future in the UK?
	Clauses 5 and 6 relate to the rate at which the levy will be set, which is governed by an EU directive. As pointed out by the Secretary of State, the daily maximum was originally set at €11, but is set to increase to €12. That will mean that the daily rate is low compared with the sums that UK hauliers pay to use toll roads in other
	European countries. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister will confirm whether there is any scope for the UK Government to request an increase in the rate, especially if other European countries increase their toll rates significantly ahead of inflation, which will further damage our competitiveness?
	It is estimated that the levy will raise around £20 million per annum. Clause 9(4) states that the revenue from the levy will go into the Consolidated Fund. Will the Minister confirm that the revenue raised will not be hypothecated for transport?
	Clause 13 establishes an efficient and effective way of enforcing payment on foreign lorries that fail to comply with legislation, as does clause 15, which allows the Secretary of State to refuse to issue a vehicle excise duty licence for which a levy has not been paid. Those measures underline the effectiveness and simplicity of the legislation.
	Clause 16 allows highway authorities to install equipment for the detection of non-payment of the levy. Will the Minister confirm what equipment exists that can be used for the purpose of detecting non-compliance, and what new equipment will be requested? I understand that the set-up costs are estimated at between £3 million and £6.7 million. Will he also confirm the prosecution procedure if a foreign lorry that has not paid the levy is detected by a system other than a roadside check? How will the prosecution be enforced?
	To sum up, the Bill has been a long time coming. It is another example of this Government delivering on things the previous one only ever talked about. It makes a more level playing field between UK hauliers and European hauliers, who for many years have made no contribution whatever to the UK road infrastructure and have cost the UK economy a huge amount of money owing to the accidents they cause on our motorways. The Bill will help to ensure that our domestic road haulage industry remains competitive, which is more important than ever.

Michael Connarty: I am pleased to make a declaration: I have no interests apart from looking after the interests of my constituents. Hon. Members have said that it is time to level the playing field for road haulage in the UK, but to use more thematically correct imagery, it is time to smooth out the anti-competitive bumps faced by UK haulage companies on the road to European markets.
	The Bill will not deal with many anti-competitive burdens placed on the many road haulage companies in my constituency and many others. Grangemouth, which is in my constituency, and which is the only EU-recognised inter-modal transport hub in Scotland, and the many communities along the M9, M8 and M876 triangle with employment in road haulage, suffer from damaging high taxation on road fuel. Competitor haulage companies from mainland Europe use that fuel price advantage to collect and deliver in the UK, even in Scotland. The Government must look at that seriously if we are really to level out those bumps.
	I know hon. Members want to get on with the debate quickly and that they have discussed the Bill between one another many times, but my constituents probably do not know the Bill’s contents. They know that, currently,
	operators of UK-registered heavy goods vehicles pay charges or tolls in most European countries—as they tell me every time I meet them—but that foreign-registered HGVs do not pay to use the UK road network. The imbalance is unfair to UK HGV operators.
	The Bill will seek to address that by introducing a levy for using UK road networks for all HGV vehicles weighing 12 tonnes and over. The requirement to pay the levy will apply to all categories of public road in the UK and to both UK and foreign-registered HGVs. The levy will range from £85 a year for the smallest HGV to £1,000 for the largest. The idea is to link the charge to the amount of damage caused on the roads by different types of HGVs.
	The Bill states that UK-registered HGVs will pay the levy for the same period and in the same transaction that they pay vehicle excise duty, which means that they will pay annually. However, foreign-registered vehicles can pay the levy daily, weekly, monthly or annually, which strikes me as an imbalance, because road haulage companies do not have their vehicles on the road at all times. If paying only when they are on the roads is good enough for foreign vehicles, why should that not be so for UK vehicles?
	The Bill states that there will be an associated reduction for UK-registered HGVs in the amount of vehicle excise duty that is payable. That is intended to mean that the vast majority of UK-based hauliers will pay no more than they pay currently. However, if 10 million vehicles use the road and pay the levy, and suddenly 15 million or 20 million start to use the roads, why should the 10 million not pay less than they paid previously? Is this just another way for the Government to make money for the Exchequer, and not a way to advantage current road users?

Robert Flello: The intention is that UK hauliers should not pay more, but one of my concerns is that there is no guarantee of that. Some of the numbers I have seen suggest that some UK hauliers will end up paying more. That hardly seems like smoothing out the bumps—quite the reverse.

Michael Connarty: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is looking over my shoulder from a distance, but I was about to express that exact concern. The Government have failed to devise a scheme that protects all UK-based hauliers, because EU rules mean that vehicle excise duty cannot be set low enough to compensate all Britain’s HGV users.
	I have a number of other concerns, which I am sure will be addressed in Committee. The Bill states that no British road haulier will be worse off as a result of the reform, but I would like to see detailed figures on how much the Government expect to raise from the exercise and on how it will be disbursed. Could some of the money be disbursed to keep vehicle licence duty down for UK heavy goods vehicles? Clearly, the Government need to look at whether they can reduce vehicle excise duty in some way.
	Why are UK hauliers set to pay the levy one year before non-UK hauliers?

Stephen Hammond: indicated dissent.

Michael Connarty: The Minister is indicating that that is not the case. If he is about to tell me that the levy will come in at exactly the same time for everyone, that would be a vast improvement.

Stephen Hammond: The Secretary of State confirmed that this afternoon in his opening remarks, and I confirmed that in the Ways and Means debate on 23 October. The only possibility of that not happening would be if there is a minor delay to the procurement of the database, but the reality is that we have moved it so that there will be simultaneous introduction.

Michael Connarty: I congratulate the Opposition Front Bench on winning that battle before it has even begun. That was a cause for concern for the Opposition, so I am pleased if that has now been swept away by their good offices and oration. It was an issue only a few days ago.
	Will the Minister look again at whether there is a way to enable UK-based drivers to have the same options for payment as non-UK-based drivers? I made this point earlier. Why should it be that those not based in the UK will pay weekly, monthly or daily, but UK owners will pay every day, whether they run a vehicle or not? That seems to be somewhat strange.
	Returning to the question of how to police the Bill, I have serious concerns. How does the UK guarantee collection of the fines—a point I made to the Minister? He indicated that it would be the driver who would be responsible. The reality is that the driver will be changed the next time the vehicle is sent into the country. The driver could be changed again, again and again. We are talking about a massive permutation of drivers. I have been attached to the police scheme twice in this place and have spent time with Serious Organised Crime Agency. One difficulty we have is that people come into the country with the deliberate intention of stealing. They are brought to court, bailed and then disappear—they never come back to the country. Someone else will turn up in that or a similar vehicle to steal once again.
	Is the Minister trying to tell us that they will be able to catch the driver, and that the next time the vehicle comes into the country it will not have a different driver? It is all right when there is a family car, and either the Minister or the Minister’s wife could have been driving the car when they were fined, as happened in the case involving a former member of the coalition Government, but it is not the same with a heavy goods vehicle. The owner can change the driver every single day, so why is it not the owner of the vehicle who gets fined? The fine would not be able to be avoided then.

Robert Flello: Does that not come back to the point that if the owner of the vehicle lives in another country, then without the cross-border ability to pursue the owner of the vehicle, the money will be collected from nowhere?

Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend must have unbelievable eyesight, because I am just about to come on to that very point. It is clear that some Government Members argue that we should extract ourselves from
	arrangements such as the European arrest warrant. In reality, however, whether it is the vehicle owner or even the driver it may be that we have to extract the person, who is a criminal if they are breaking the law, from another country by using the European arrest warrant. If we withdraw from the European arrest warrant agreement, how will we pursue such people among the 500 million people who live in the EU?

Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Connarty: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman who declared his interest earlier.

Andrew Bridgen: If the driver is not fined, it should not necessarily be the owner, but the registered operator of the vehicle. The registered operator may or may not be the owner—it is a technicality.

Michael Connarty: In the same way that I am pursuing the idea of looking at the supply chain so that human trafficking and modern day slavery can be eradicated by looking at the companies who eventually get the goods, I also think that the owner of the vehicle should discipline and instruct their employees to ensure that they do not break the law. There has to be some way of dealing with this so that we can pursue the vehicles. We have a major problem if we stick with the driver.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Connarty: I will not take another intervention—people want to get on to other business today. These matters must be discussed in some detail in Committee. If we have a situation where there is no European framework through which we can arrest people—the European arrest warrant—then the Bill will come to naught.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for being gracious in giving way. I want, through him, to give the Minister the opportunity to answer the question I asked in the Ways and Means debate, the same question the Secretary of State perhaps misunderstood and answered, when I raised it earlier, by referring to European trade rules. I hope that the Minister, in his response to my hon. Friend’s very good point, will be able to clarify what will happen now that we do not have cross-border enforcement, because the Government have opted out of it.

Michael Connarty: There will be a lot of things that, if the Government opt out of them, will collapse around our ears. I hope, in making these points, that I am providing positive criticism, because I would like to see the Bill emerge in a perfect form, or as perfect as it can possibly be. I welcome the Bill in principle, and hauliers in my constituency welcome the idea behind it, but we must make sure that it comes out of Committee in a form so that it will do what is intended to do, and is not just a precursor to road pricing for everyone in the UK.

Damian Collins: Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill. In particular,
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) who, as roads Minister, met with me and listened to the complaints of my constituents regarding the previous charging scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made a good point about the Conservative policy group’s proposal in 2007, which set out a scheme similar to the one in the Bill, to introduce HGV road charging. It is a shame that that scheme was not looked at more seriously by the Government of the day, and that more progress was not made. This Government should be congratulated, because a view was expressed that it would not be possible, under EU law, to introduce a charging scheme, but the Bill demonstrates that it is possible.
	Most hon. Members have made the point about fairness—fairness to the UK haulage industry and fairness to the UK taxpayer. It is not fair when large HGVs can fill up with cheap fuel in Europe—typically, in somewhere such as Luxembourg—and make an entire tour of the UK before returning home having made no direct financial contribution to the UK at all. They are not buying fuel, and they are not paying any other charges or tolls here. Typically, our lorry drivers have to do that when they visit the European continent, so it is fair that the measure is put in place to redress the balance.
	The issue is of keen interest to my constituents. As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe—I am looking at the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is in his place—I am probably the MP with the closest thing to a land border with the continent of Europe and the EU, as the channel tunnel is in my constituency. The idea of enforcing this measure and these charges across jurisdictions is particularly important, both here and for hauliers operating from outside the United Kingdom. My constituents feel particularly strongly because of our proximity to the port of Dover, and because of the presence of the channel tunnel. We see the costs of the road haulage system on our roads and infrastructure as well. It is a concern that financial compensation is not extracted from foreign hauliers for the road network that they use so freely.

Robert Flello: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just a matter of the wear and tear that overseas hauliers have on our road infrastructure, but that they also cost British hauliers money by congesting the roads? That means that our British hauliers are more inefficient when driving on our roads, because of the added congestion. That is costing our drivers more money in fuel.

Damian Collins: The hon. Gentleman’s point underlines how important it is to have a system that creates a level playing field of charging. One set of hauliers who are not paying UK vehicle excise duty get a free rein, while UK hauliers pay for the impact on the infrastructure that they use in common.
	There are other issues that make this particularly important. I want to touch on an issue common in areas with ports that service the UK and the continent of Europe. In my constituency, when the port is closed, owing to bad weather or—typically with the Dover-Calais link—industrial action in the port of Calais, Operation Stack comes into action. This means that lorries are stack parked on the motorway, normally closing the
	coast-bound carriageway of the M20 at different stages. This is very expensive to enforce for Kent police and adds to wear and damage not only on the motorway network but on the roads surrounding it. It is not unusual to see lorries parked on minor roads and roundabouts and in lay-bys, often creating mess and causing damage.
	One reason my constituents have pressed for these measures is that there should be some means of extracting payment through a charging scheme and—I hope—through the measures in the Bill to create a register of hauliers licensed to use our roads, which will be published on the internet. That way we will know who these lorries are owned by and where they are coming from, and it might make it easier to enforce other charges, not just the charge for taking out the vignette to use the UK motorway network. I would like more action taken to follow up lorries that cause damage on the roadsides, that litter and that might be associated with other accidents or problems caused while they are here. Creating this database and register of foreign hauliers using our roads will be a good first step towards taking such action.
	I do not share all the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). The important thing is that there is a system of fining, and that the fines are enforced. Hauliers that come here frequently and are fined frequently will soon realise that they would be better off taking out the vignette in the first place. If action has to be taken against the lorry driver while they are in the country, and if their progress is delayed, it will often have considerable financial consequences for the hauliers, which operate on a tight schedule while completing their tours. They will not want to be delayed. If lorries are clamped or taken off the roads while the driver waits for someone to pay the fine, that, too, will have financial consequences for the haulier. The important thing, then, is that the charging scheme is in place, that it is enforced equally and that foreign hauliers are made to pay the charge for using the road or receive a financial penalty for not doing so, either directly or indirectly, through the lorries being clamped or taken off the road.
	I mentioned earlier the cost of Operation Stack. I am sure that all colleagues will have a view of what the Government could do with the money raised from this charging scheme. Earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State estimated that it would be between £19 million and £23 million a year. I hope that the Government will be mindful of some of the pinch-points in the motorway network, particularly where the cost from the haulage industry—the impact on the roads and the infrastructure —is particularly great. That can be seen in Kent with Operation Stack, especially in the winter months, when the effects are extremely acute. Let us consider whether some of the funds raised could be given, on a discretionary basis, to alleviate some of the damage and problems caused by the haulage operating on some of these major pinch-points, particularly the one running through Kent in my constituency.
	I congratulate and thank the Government for bringing forward a Bill that introduces the level playing field that we want and introduces fairness not only for the UK haulage industry but for the UK taxpayer.

Jim Shannon: As the Member for Strangford in Northern Ireland, I know the importance of a viable freight industry that can deliver all the products we have. The UK freight industry has supported the principles in the Bill for the past few years, and there is a consensus in favour of the Bill. Members on both sides of the House are of that opinion, and the freight industry is telling us the same thing as well. The industry is vital to Northern Ireland and my constituency in particular. Some hon. Members, their families and their constituents will enjoy the vegetables and potatoes that come from my constituency, because 70% of our food is exported to the rest of the United Kingdom. So when Members sit down to the humble Comber spud on their Sundays, quite possibly it has come for my constituency. It is important, therefore, to have a viable freight industry.
	I have a couple of quick questions. The Bill makes it explicit that the vehicle excise duty will be the means by which the rebate will be made. Can the Minister give us the precise reductions in the duty that could bring that about? I rather think that they will not be known until the Budget statement of 2014, when they will be included in the Finance Bill. The levy is to be introduced for UK operators from May 2014, but the process must be operational in time for the vehicle excise duty renewals. Will he assure us of that time scale? It is vital for the industry.
	Figures released by the Department indicate that about 6,500 vehicles fall into bands for which vehicle excise duty rates are already too low to offset the cost of the levy. I understand that half of these vehicles—about 3,250—are 28-tonne 2x2 articulated vehicles. Will the Minister indicate, either today or later, the breakdown of operators using vehicles requiring a higher net charge than at present? In particular, where do they operate from? Are they one-man bands or small companies that need a bit of help? It would help if consideration could be given to that. It is unclear whether the 2% of vehicles identified in the money resolution debate as facing significant extra charges as a result of the change are to be found largely in a particular sector or sub-class of vehicle.
	It is important that the Minister considers another matter. Businesses need to plan ahead and have some indication of what the costs will be for the future. That is particularly important, as down-plating might not be possible for some operations.
	I would like to focus on one final point touched on by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). I would like the Minister to clarify a few points for Northern Ireland Members in particular—given that we have a land border—about how this will affect us. How will the charging work in Northern Ireland across the land border with the Republic of Ireland? I ask because I understand that the Irish Government have already begun discussions with Ministers about the amount of cross-border trade. If that is the case, could Irish vehicles be regarded as a special case? It would be useful for Northern Ireland MPs and the House as a whole to know whether the UK Government are minded to permit this exemption. Finally, how will holders of reduced pollution certificates be compensated through replacement grants?
	We are moving to a better place with this Bill. We have a chance to do something that is important for the freight industry in the area I represent and the many companies that depend on it. It is also important for the produce that is moved from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic. The Bill will have an important impact on those industries. I want to see the Bill go through and the benefits that come from it. I understand that I will not be on the Committee, but others will, and I will keep a watchful eye on it.

Iain Stewart: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a further short contribution to this debate, following the Ways and Means debate on 23 October. I will not detain the House by repeating all the points I made then, but I want to put on the record my support for the Bill on Second Reading, and add my congratulations and thanks to the Government for bringing it in. It is a long, long overdue measure.
	My interest in this subject stems partly from my membership of the Select Committee on Transport—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) set out in detail why we have taken an interest—but I also have a constituency interest. Milton Keynes is home to many hauliers and large logistics and distribution companies. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned that most potatoes in the country come from his constituency. At the top end of the scale in my constituency we have the national distribution centre for John Lewis, so if Members buy their Christmas gifts from John Lewis—other department stores are available—the goods will very likely start their journey in my constituency. I paid a visit to those at the John Lewis distribution centre a couple of weeks ago and asked their opinion on the Bill. They told me: “Our view is that the Bill is a positive step, because it is helping to address the unfair balance of foreign trucks coming into the country with lower diesel costs. In that regard it is very welcome.” I believe that is the typical view of the haulage industry.
	I want to use a little example to flesh out the reasons why UK hauliers are currently at a competitive disadvantage. The point has been well made that fuel prices on the continent are lower than in the UK. As of last month, the average UK diesel price after adjustments was around €1.72 a litre. That contrasts with €1.37 in Belgium, €1.35 in France, €1.30 in Luxembourg and €1.44 in the Netherlands, so foreign hauliers coming to this country stand to make a gain of 20-odd per cent. When fuel represents up to 40% of the operating costs of an HGV, that makes a critical difference to the operating margin for many haulage companies. I have had many representations from hauliers, as I am sure other Members have, about the disadvantage they face, not only from international competition, but from cabotage, whereby trucks fill up overseas and can then cherry-pick short-haul domestic journeys in this country. That can create huge employment uncertainty for HGV drivers in this country, which is a problem that I do not think has been mentioned in the debate thus far. I have had representations from constituents who have been HGV drivers for many years who have found it more and more difficult to get long-term permanent jobs because of the competition from overseas lorries. This measure will go a long way to creating some certainty and security in that employment market.
	I will not detain the House any longer—I do not want just to go over all the points I made in the Ways and Means debate. I support the Bill and wish it a speedy passage today and in Committee, and I look forward to it becoming law sooner rather than later.

Mark Spencer: This is indeed a great day for UK business and for small and medium-sized enterprises. Combined with the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill yesterday, today’s Bill represents a stamping of this coalition Government’s commitment to small and medium-sized enterprises and to solving some of the problems they face. That goes not only for small and medium-sized enterprises, but for our consumers and constituents, who pay for the costs and the bureaucracy that are built into business. Anything we can do to solve some of those problems will be of benefit to them.
	I want to take a few moments to seek clarification on one or two points. I am sure some of them will be thrashed out in Committee, but I will start by being a little pedantic. Can the Minister say how he will define “a day”? Is it 24 hours from the point of entry into the country, or is it a Monday, a Tuesday, a Wednesday, and so on? When does “a day” begin? Does it begin when someone has cleared customs, when they leave the port or when they exit the ferry? If someone is caught in a road traffic accident or in a queue caused by one and they miss the deadline by five minutes, the definition could become quite an issue. I hope that ANPR technology will assist the authorities in ensuring that people are registered and are paying the levies. I hope that the Minister will confirm that ANPR will be installed in all our ports and at all entrances to the country.

Damian Collins: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Does he agree that consideration would need to be given to lorries that get caught up in Operation Stack, which I mentioned in my speech? Sometimes lorries may be held for two or three days when they are only a few hours away from the port.

Mark Spencer: Absolutely; I acknowledge that point, which is particularly applicable in my hon. Friend’s constituency, where, for reasons beyond the driver’s control, he may find himself missing the deadlines. Indeed, that point is vital, because if the police are to have access to ANPR data, those data need to be live and in real time, because any vehicle might be complying with the levy at that moment, but not in half an hour’s time. I hope that those data will be live and available.
	We have heard quite a bit about enforcement today, and about whether it should apply to the driver or the owner. I want to caution the Minister to ensure that it will not involve the owner. The identity of the owner could be the source of some debate. It could be a leasing company, or a hire company. It could well be someone who is not connected to the way in which the vehicle is being operated. I hope that that point will be clarified.
	Finally, will impounding be used as the ultimate sanction to ensure that these vehicles do not continue to move? That could give rise to issues if the goods on the vehicle were perishable or, even worse, if the vehicle were carrying livestock. How would we deal with impounding an articulated lorry full of bees, for example, or sheep or pigs? We need to think those issues through.
	Broadly, however, I welcome the Bill. It represents a great step forward in levelling the playing field and assisting the hard-working HGV companies in the UK. The Minister and his Department are to be congratulated on it.

Andrew Bingham: I will not detain the House for long, as there is further business that we want to get to. I want to add my voice to those who have paid tribute to the Government for introducing the Bill. It is long overdue and very welcome. I am also pleased to see that it has gained cross-party support.
	My constituency has a large number of haulage contractors because we have a lot of quarries. Those contractors run many wagons up and down the country, and the Bill will help and support them. They move the finest limestone in the world to various parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) mentioned John Lewis products being in everyone’s Christmas bags this year. I dare say that most hon. Members’ houses contain a little piece of High Peak limestone somewhere.
	Those hauliers have been operating under more and more pressure as a result of foreign hauliers coming into the country. They use our roads, which results in wear and tear. We hear the thunder of wagons trundling down the roads in the High Peak day and night, and many of those wagons come from abroad. There has been much talk about levelling the playing field to give our own hauliers the competitive edge that they need. I believe that the Bill will achieve that, and I applaud it.
	When our hauliers go abroad, they pay tolls and user charges on foreign motorways such as the autoroutes in France, the autostrade in Italy and the autopistas in Spain. Our hauliers pay to help with their upkeep. I am not wont to quote anything European, but when European HGVs come here, the French pay rien, the Italians pay niente and the Spanish pay nada—that is, nothing. The Bill will address that issue. As we have already heard, foreign haulage contractors also use cheaper fuel.
	This is a great Bill, so let us speed it through. Let us give our hauliers and the wagon drivers they employ a level playing field. I used to supply haulage companies with machinery, and I know that other people’s jobs rely on those companies. They include mechanics, suppliers and those in the oil industry. The Bill is a great thing for British hauliers and the British economy, and, together with the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill that we debated yesterday, it shows that this Government are serious about helping small and medium-sized enterprises up and down the country. They are not just talking about it; they are actually doing it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Stephen Hammond: As my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Transport said in his opening speech, the intent of the Bill is absolutely clear. It will help to deliver a fairer deal for UK hauliers, going some way to correct an inequality that has existed for too long.
	On 23 October this year, we held an extensive Ways and Means debate, and I was urged to make a contribution that owed more to quantity than quality. Today, I have been urged to make my speech one of quality rather than quantity, and I will obey that stricture. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for the points he raised today and during the Ways and Means debate. He rightly said that the Bill was to be welcomed. I tried in the previous debate to answer some of his questions, and I shall try again to deal with points that he has raised, along with those raised by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman).
	Vehicle excise duty rates will be published in the draft Finance Bill towards the end of 2013, so they will be known well before the start of the levy. There has been a great deal of discussion about enforcement today, and about whether opting out of cross-border enforcement arrangements would hamper enforcement. Let me make it clear that the cross-border enforcement directive is only about data exchange. As we said in the Ways and Means debate, and as my right hon. Friend said earlier today, there is therefore no question of enforcement being hindered by our not being involved in the directive. Outstanding fines and penalties can be pursued even if they are not in the directive.
	Questions were raised about who is paying the fine. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was exactly right: it is the driver, but the registered vehicle keeper is jointly liable, so VOSA—the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency—or the Driver and Vehicle Agency can act against both, including by impounding vehicles and by taking drivers and operators to court. Drivers without a satisfactory UK address will be required to pay a financial penalty deposit on the spot by a VOSA enforcement officer. This enforcement strategy is designed to overcome the problem, raised by several Opposition Members, of foreign drivers fleeing back to their own country and out of UK jurisdiction. The question of enforcement has been well dealt with, and there is always the option of a prosecution in the magistrates court for the offence, as set out in clause 11.
	Questions have been raised about what would happen if the load was seized and how much of it could be seized. The Bill makes it fairly clear that the whole load is seized. I will consider the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) about whether a lorry might be carrying bees, locusts or whatever else, and about what needs to be done at that stage. Let us none the less be clear: the Bill contains the power to seize the load.
	As I said in the Ways and Means debate, the Welsh Government were seeking a legislative consent motion at that stage. Since then, after further discussions with departmental officials, they decided that they did not need to do this. Scotland and Northern Ireland had already said that. Let us be clear that the HGV levy is a tax, so it is a reserved matter, but we have no intention of limiting the power of any of the devolved Administrations to introduce charging if they so wish at some future date, and the Bill allows for geographic coverage of the HGV road user levy to be amended by order to allow this, if necessary.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about Northern Ireland. As I said in the Ways and Means debate, Ireland already has road charges in
	the form of tolls. The new UK charge applying in Northern Ireland is about the same as existing Irish tolls, so this would be relevant to a round trip from Belfast to Dublin and back again. It would be difficult to exempt Northern Ireland, because the Government are introducing this by means of reducing VED. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I am sure we can explore the issue further in Committee.
	To return to the main aims of the Bill and the key point about the level of charge, we consider our plan to charge large vehicles £10 a day or £1,000 a year to be fair, proportionate and compliant with relevant EU legislation. For the daily amount, we are seeking to charge the highest level permissible while remaining compliant with EU law.

Robert Flello: Does the Minister agree that it might be worth the Department going away and looking again to see if there are perhaps more creative ways of raising that amount? As Government Members themselves have said, a driver from the UK going across the channel and perhaps using an Autobahn or paying a toll in Germany might end up paying a great deal more than £10 a day.

Stephen Hammond: I will look at that again, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have already looked at it in some detail. The clear requirement is to ensure that the Bill remains compliant with EU regulations and law about the vignette; at that level of charge, it does.
	Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), asked how many UK hauliers would not be better off. I can tell him that 94% of UK hauliers will pay no more than they pay now, and 98% will pay no more than £50. There are effectively two classes of vehicle for which there may be small problems. First, there are the conventional HGVs—either articulated or rigid vehicles without a trailer. For them—a relatively small number of vehicles, perhaps 6,000 out of the 260,000 in the UK fleet—the maximum calculated loss is £79. Then there are a small number—about 7,000 of them on the road—of rigid vehicles with a trailer. Of those we estimate—the Department has done some analysis—that fewer than 50 will face potentially more than £300 extra in costs. There is, however, a relatively simple remedy for them—re-plating. I am sure that that can be explored further in Committee.
	The Bill is not designed as a precursor to increased charges for businesses or road users more widely, as some have speculated. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, our intention is clear: it is to introduce legislation that will level the playing field in order to help UK hauliers.
	I am delighted that the Bill has been received so positively today, because I think that it presents an opportunity to correct an injustice that has persisted for far too long; I am delighted with the support that we
	have had from Members in all parts of the House; and I am delighted that the Bill is to be given a Second Reading today.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

HGV ROAD USER LEVY BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7) ) ,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the HGV Road User Levy Bill:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13 December 2012.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(M r McLoughlin .)
	Question agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7) ) ,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Civil Aviation Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 30 January 2012 in the last Session of Parliament (Civil Aviation Bill (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 25 April 2012 in that Session (Civil Aviation Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Simon Burns.)
	Question agreed to.

Civil Aviation Bill

Consideration of Lords Amendments

Clause 1
	 — 
	CAA’s general duty

Simon Burns: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 72.

Simon Burns: In an increasingly globalised world, air travel is fundamental to the long-term competitiveness of the United Kingdom. However, much of the legislation that governs aviation dates from the 1980s, and it is therefore imperative for the legislative framework to be brought up to date. The Civil Aviation Bill introduces, and makes possible, reform in four key areas: the economic regulation of airports, the legislative framework of the Civil Aviation Authority, the air travel organisers’ licence scheme, and aviation security. The Bill has secured wide support, and we have worked hard to address issues that have raised concern in this House, in another place, or in the industry.
	The vast majority of the amendments made since the Bill was last in this House are minor and technical, including Lords amendments 23 to 27, 29 to 36 and 44 to 71. I shall refrain from entering too deeply into the details of those amendments at this stage; suffice it to say that they are predominantly concerned with improving the drafting, clarifying the wording, removing areas of ambiguity, or excluding doubt to ensure that our policy intentions are properly met and delivered in full.
	Let me deal briefly with three notable issues on which amendments have been agreed in another place: the imposition of environmental duties on the CAA, the efficiency of the CAA, and the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations relating to the ATOL scheme.
	The environmental impact of aviation has been raised during the Bill’s passage through both Houses, and the Government take it very seriously. In particular, there has been a great deal of focus on giving the CAA additional duties to take account of it. Lords amendments 1 to 4 respond to that concern by giving the CAA a supplementary environmental duty to which it must have regard in performing its airport economic regulation functions. The amendments are intended to make clear that in conducting those functions, the CAA must have regard to the ability of the regulated airport operator to take reasonable measures to reduce, control or mitigate adverse environmental effects that are generated by the activity of the airport—and aircraft using the airport—to which the licence relates. For example, a reasonable measure could be a cost-effective energy saving investment project, such as the installation of solar-powered lighting in terminal buildings, which would lower the airport’s future energy costs. Environmental issues in this context would include noise, vibration, emissions and the effects of works carried out at the airport. The amendments also provide clarity that reasonable costs of environmental
	measures undertaken by licence holders may continue to be taken into account in the regulatory settlement, where the measures are in the interests of passengers and owners of cargo and to do with the provision of airport operation services.
	We have always been clear that airport operators, whether or not they are subject to economic regulation, should be able to invest in appropriate environmental measures. For example, if an unregulated airport undertakes investment in environmental measures that benefit passengers, the Civil Aviation Authority will be able to look to this and approve a reasonable similar investment in the regulatory settlement at a regulated airport.
	The Government do not believe that the absence of an environmental supplementary duty would prevent the CAA from approving environmental investment where that is in passengers’ and cargo owners’ interests. However, following detailed consideration of the matter, the Government decided there is a benefit to making this clear in the Bill. Certainly, the Bill should not be seen as placing a restriction on investment in environmental measures at licensed airports where they benefit passengers and freight owners in the provision of airport operation services.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am sure departmental officials will have briefed the Minister that we debated at length in Committee whether an environmental duty should be placed on the CAA in respect of the operation of airports. There was a subsequent debate about the suggestion of the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), that such a measure would apply only to Heathrow. There is therefore a debate to be had about whether the environmental duty should cover all airports, or just Heathrow. Will the Minister confirm that the proposed CAA environmental duty that the Government have accepted will operate across the entire aviation industry?

Simon Burns: The hon. Gentleman is right: I have been extremely well briefed by some excellent civil servants, who have had to play catch-up, because I am a Johnny-come-lately to this debate as a result of the events of 4 September this year. I confirm that this duty will apply not just to Heathrow, but also to the other regulated airports of Gatwick and Stansted. I hope that reassures him.
	A regulated airport should not be required to spend on environmental measures where a competitive airport would not do so, because that could create market distortions by placing greater burdens on regulated airports than non-regulated airports. Furthermore, not only have the Government sought to address these concerns through their own amendments, but on Report in another place Opposition amendments to the proposed Government amendments strengthening the wording of this duty were also accepted. I hope the House will recognise that as a genuine effort to reach an agreed position on including appropriate environmental considerations in the Bill. We are confident that we have struck the right balance on the environment, and that the CAA will be better placed than ever before to take environmental matters seriously.
	On CAA efficiency, we agree with industry stakeholders that it is important to hold the CAA to account. There are a number of provisions in existing legislation that
	require the CAA to carry out its activities efficiently. Lords amendment 22 inserts a new clause that will provide for greater transparency and accountability in the CAA’s efficiency measures. Section 21(3) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 already requires the Secretary of State to lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the CAA’s annual report on its performance and its functions in that accounting year. If Lords amendment 22 is accepted, in future this annual report laid in each House will include an efficiency statement by the CAA and an assessment by the independent auditors of that efficiency statement. The provisions will give the CAA a further incentive to secure value for money and to be as efficient as possible in performing its functions. I am pleased to say that the amendment was welcomed in the other place, where the Opposition commended it, saying:
	“This is an excellent proposal, which will guarantee that the efficiency of the CAA will be subject to scrutiny”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1062.]
	I hope that the new clause will enjoy a similar level of support in this House.
	Lords amendments 17 to 20 provide the Secretary of State with further powers to close down potential ways around the ATOL scheme. The Secretary of State already has the power to regulate businesses that make available flight accommodation and, under clause 94 of the Bill as introduced, will have the power to regulate businesses acting as an agent for the consumer. However, after the Bill was introduced, the Government and the CAA found possible loopholes that needed to be addressed in further powers.
	The first loophole concerns a potential business model whereby a business argues that it is neither making available flight accommodation nor acting for the consumer but is instead merely facilitating making available flight accommodation. That business could then argue that it is not in the scope of either the existing ATOL regulation-making power or those in the Bill as introduced. Lords amendments 17 and 18 address that loophole by giving the Secretary of State powers to include businesses that facilitate making available flight accommodation in the ATOL scheme.
	Secondly, amendments 19 and 20 give further necessary clarity to the regulation-making power in instances where goods and services sold alongside flights, such as accommodation or car hire, can be protected under the ATOL scheme. By closing potential avoidance approaches, those four amendments will help the Government meet our stated objectives of providing greater clarity for consumers about what holidays and flights are included in the ATOL scheme as well as a more consistent regulatory framework for businesses.
	I have dealt with the main substantive issues covered by the Lords amendments. The remaining amendments, as I alluded to, are the majority and are technical and drafting amendments that clarify issues so that there is no shadow of a doubt about the Bill’s intentions.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Like the Minister, we welcome the Bill and the Lords amendments. We supported much of the Bill in Committee and continue to do so today. This is my first opportunity to welcome the new Minister of State to his position and to face him across the Dispatch Box, so I wish him well in his new role. It is probably good to be meeting on relatively friendly terms on our first outing.
	We are very pleased that the Government have accepted a number of amendments. In the other place, the noble Earl Attlee said:
	“The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, is very insistent and persuasive. He is clearly convinced that his amendments will improve the Bill. My Bill team manager will probably kill me, but I can accept”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1003.]
	Clearly, I need to take advice and lessons from my noble Friend on how to be insistent and persuasive, because we tabled those amendments, a number of which were accepted in the other place, in Committee and raised the subject again on Third Reading. We were spectacularly unsuccessful in persuading the Government to accept a single amendment, so we obviously need to speak closely to our colleagues in the other place to see how they were able to secure agreement.

Huw Irranca-Davies: It might be some consolation to my hon. Friend if I say to him that it might not be his powers of persuasion. It sometimes takes time for things to sink in.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his understanding of the difficulties that the coalition sometimes has, and I am sure coalition Members are also grateful for that empathy.
	I will not speak for long. I know that there is an important debate on autism to follow, and that a number of colleagues want to get in on this brief debate. I refer specifically to amendments 1 to 4 and 22, which cover the environmental issues and the CAA duty of efficiency. It is disappointing that the eloquent Lord Davies was unconvincing on the issue of emissions, especially as the European Union emission trading scheme has folded. We had a discussion in Committee about emission targets. In his closing remarks the Minister might want to comment on where we go on that. Aviation emission targets were a matter of some concern, but the amendments in the other place were not accepted. There is also nothing on passenger welfare, which we pressed in a number of ways.
	On amendments 1 to 4, we spent considerable time in Committee, from column 112 onwards in the Official Report, trying to persuade the Government of the merits of the environmental duties. Fortunately, they have seen some of the light. On amendment 22, at columns 343 and 344, we argued the case, for the aviation industry, that the Civil Aviation Authority should have a duty to operate efficiently.
	In response to our requests, the Minister’s predecessor said:
	“Sadly, the shadow Minister will think me hard-hearted, because I cannot support new clause 2”.
	She went on to say:
	“I can only re-emphasise that my understanding and interpretation of the Bill is that it does indeed require the CAA to act in an efficient way.”––[Official Report, Civil Aviation Public Bill Committee, 13 March 2012; c. 343-4.]
	Fortunately, it seems that she was wrong, and we welcome the Government’s change of heart.
	We welcome the Government amendments on ATOL and the opportunity to debate the subject, and the Government’s intentions, more thoroughly in Westminster Hall on Thursday. As I said, this is essentially a good
	Bill. It could have been even better, but as a result of the good sense of our noble Friends in the other place, it is at least in better shape now than when it left here, and we support the amendments.

Alan Reid: I welcome the Bill and the amendments before us today, particularly amendments 1 to 4, which deal with the protection of the environment. For the Liberal Democrats it is extremely important that a duty of care for the environment is written into the Bill, and the amendments achieve that. This was an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) raised on Second Reading and continued to raise as the Bill went through its Commons stages, so I am delighted that the Government have listened to him and to the Liberal Democrats and tabled their own amendments in the Lords.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I hate to disillusion the hon. Gentleman, but we had some good exchanges with his hon. Friend, who managed to wriggle out of supporting any of the environmental duty amendments that we tabled. I would have referred to him in my speech, but I had not given him advance notice and I would not do him the discourtesy. We give credit to the other place for the amendments, not to the hon. Member for Cambridge.

Alan Reid: An interesting intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I discussed the Bill with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge before today, and I understand that he felt there were some technical deficiencies in the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman in Committee. It is important to stress that Liberal Democrats are in government, and we are able to influence the Government because we are part of the Government. It was the Government who tabled the amendments in the Lords. Having spent nine years on the Opposition Benches, I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration. Without civil service advice, it is difficult to get an amendment right. Being on the Government Benches, Liberal Democrats are achieving successes and this is one of them. As a result of our influence, care for the environment is now on the face of the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: We are always willing to learn, so will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us about what those technical deficiencies were, so that in future we can table better amendments?

Alan Reid: The amendments in question are not on the amendment paper today. What we have before us today are the amendments made in the Lords, and I would probably be out of order if I spoke to amendments that have not been tabled. The hon. Gentleman could have tabled amendments to the Lords amendments, but chose not to do so, so we cannot discuss them.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I may be wrong, but I doubt I am. I quoted Earl Attlee accepting amendment 2 and adding:
	“My Bill manager will probably kill me”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1003.]
	Amendment 2 was tabled by Lord Davies and accepted by the Government. We tabled that amendment in Committee and on Report. The hon. Member for Cambridge had ample opportunity to table his own amendment, but nothing was forthcoming.

Alan Reid: My understanding is that amendment 2 was an amendment to a Government amendment and only worked because it was combined with the Government amendment.
	I did not intend to speak for long, Mr Deputy Speaker, but have been waylaid by Opposition Members. I will conclude by saying that the Bill now focuses both on passengers and on the environment. I believe it strikes the right balance and I am pleased to support it today.

Jim Shannon: Given that the Government have no plans to protect access to the hubs, I would like to ask a question in reference to clause 6. Access to the hubs of Heathrow and Gatwick is important for Belfast City airport and Aldergrove International airport. Ever mindful that air transport is a volatile business, the matter was debated in another place through an amendment tabled by Lord Empey. Referring to a report by Birmingham MEP Philip Bradbourn, the noble Lord said:
	“It was drawn up in April this year and, I believe, was passed by the European Parliament in May. The report, ‘considers it essential for regional airports to have access to hubs’.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1252.]
	Lord Empey advanced that view in his amendment, which was not accepted.
	I raise the point because on 6 November, Jim Nicholson MEP tabled two amendments to a proposed European regulation. I do not intend to read out the text of amendment 45 in its entirety, but it is about the slot allocation system established in 1993, and states in italics:
	“In addition it is important that access to hub airports from regional airports should be maintained where such routes are essential to the economy of that region.”
	That amendment was adopted by the European Parliament, as was amendment 178, which, after the provision,
	“The coordinator shall set up a pool, which shall contain all the slots. All new slot capacity determined pursuant to Article 3(3) shall be placed in the pool”
	would add,
	“This procedure shall be without prejudice to regional airports connectivity to hub airports. If such connectivity is undermined Member States shall be permitted to intervene.”
	After all that lead-in, my question to the Minister is quite simple. Will he assure this House that he will support those amendments, which will protect access to the hubs and give life and continuity to Belfast City and Aldergrove International airports, when they come from Europe to this House?

David Ruffley: I rise to speak briefly in this short debate. Amendment 3, which relates to clause 2, refers to
	“the need to secure that each holder of a licence… is able to take reasonable measures to reduce, control or mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the airport to which the licence relates”.
	I would like to quiz the Minister on the meaning of “environmental effects”, because I am a strong supporter of an estuary airport solution and very much opposed to the idea of a third, or conceivably a fourth, runway at Heathrow.
	It seems fairly clear that aviation pollution from Heathrow, if the airport was extended, would compound an already poor state of affairs. There are about 50 early deaths a year as a result of pollution, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has calculated that the number could climb to 150 if a third runway is built. We also know that the prevailing winds at Heathrow are south-westerly and that pollution from the airport already spreads over a huge swathe of north London.
	Finally, we also know that noise from Heathrow accounts for 95% of all the noise impacting people from London airports and that around 725,000 people live under the flight path and experience noise in excess of 55 dB. If Heathrow is extended, we can expect all those environmental impacts to be exacerbated. Will the Minister indicate whether the rather welcome amendment, which would require adverse environmental effects to be mitigated, will include the list I have just given?

John McDonnell: There is not much more to say after that contribution, except that the key issues of noise and emissions pollution are absolutely critical to my constituents and, as the hon. Gentleman said, to a much wider area of the south-east. That is why I welcome the amendments, wherever they were drafted—I think forensics could prove where they come from.
	The key issue for my constituents is how the targets will be set, monitored and reported. It would be useful if the Minister clarified what role this House will have in monitoring the implementation of this legislation. In the past we have received the CAA’s annual reports and individual determinations but, given that the legislation represents a significant break, I think that a regular report from the Secretary of State would be extremely useful, even if it was only an annual report. We could then have a full debate on the Floor of the House to monitor issues such as the environmental impact.

Simon Burns: It might be helpful at this point if I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, as I said in my introductory remarks, there is and will continue to be an annual report from the CAA, and it will be up to this House to debate it, in a variety of shapes and forms, at any time it wishes.

John McDonnell: That is incredibly helpful. I encourage Members to join me in ensuring that we have that annual debate, which we have not had up to now. The legislation places duties not only on the CAA, but on the Secretary of State. Therefore, I think that it is important that we have an annual report from the Secretary of State on the fulfilment of his or her duties that we can debate, because this is a critical piece of legislation for so many of our constituents.

Simon Burns: I intend to speak very briefly and not to detain the House for long, because I understand that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the important debate that will follow. I will deal briefly with some of the issues raised by hon. Members because, as those aficionados who attended Second Reading and Committee will know, there has been a thorough debate and considerable engagement between those with differing views and opinions, not least in another place.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I will not get involved in the little squabble between the official Opposition and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid).
	The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) mentioned the important matter of emissions. I do not want to get into an in-depth debate or to regurgitate what has already been said. On the question of the duty to work with others to meet the UK’s emissions targets, we believe that the Opposition amendments are unnecessary, as was pointed out in Committee and on Report. That is because, as he will accept, this Government and the CAA already take environmental matters very seriously, and the Government’s approach is to ensure that the aviation sector makes a significant and cost-effective contribution towards reducing global emissions. Moreover, the Opposition amendments were technically flawed, although I accept that that could have been remedied during the subsequent procedures in this House. We feel that our general approach, with the way in which we have listened to the arguments and the amendments that have been made, is the right way forward and that it gives the protections whereby the environmental issues will be taken very seriously.
	The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned emissions and referred to what has happened in the past week or so with regard to the European dimension. The UK welcomes the Commission’s proposal to, in effect, stop the clock in return for progress on global agreement in the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We think that it is right that we give the United Nations process time to make progress on a global deal, and we look forward to receiving more detail on the substance of its proposal, and sight of the formal legislative proposal, which is due, I believe, later this month. We hope that the constructive atmosphere in which Friday’s international meeting took place can continue and that the UN is able to build on the current momentum to deliver a successful and ambitious outcome next year.

Jim Fitzpatrick: rose —

Simon Burns: I am beginning to regret giving such a detailed response because it has invited an intervention, to which I am more than happy to give way.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to the Minister. In the absence of the European emissions trading scheme and of an international agreement in the ICAO, but with ongoing dialogue, will the Government engage with the Committee on Climate Change to look at aviation and, for that matter, shipping emissions, because they are not incorporated into UK targets although people naturally feel that they are significant?

Simon Burns: We will engage wherever necessary to seek to reach solutions that are viable and will achieve the objectives set out, provided that they are the right course of action and the correct way forward.
	Let me pick up the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), because I think that I dealt with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in my intervention. [ Interruption. ] Well, I thought I
	did; I hope that he will be generous so that we can make progress. As the hon. Member for Strangford and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds will know, the context for dealing with the environmental issues surrounding Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, for example, are all fully dealt with in the Bill.
	I felt at times that the hon. Member for Strangford was going a little further on to the wider issue of hub airport status. I have to say to him, in the nicest possible way, that that is obviously beyond the scope of this Bill. However, I hope that he will take reassurance from the fact that in order to look at the whole area of the future of aviation policy, to meet our commitments and to protect our position as the significant hub airport presence for western Europe, we have set up, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Davies inquiry, which will look across the range at the best way forward on aviation policy, the best way to deal with capacity and connectivity issues—

Brian H Donohoe: Will the Minister give way?

Simon Burns: No, because I really do want to make progress.
	The inquiry will report in due course, and it would be extremely foolish of me to try to prejudge or anticipate it, but no doubt the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse will, if he so wishes, be prepared to contribute to it by submitting his views on issues that he clearly holds to be very important, as indeed they are.
	In conclusion, as the hon. Gentleman has said, this process, which started with the Bill’s Second Reading in
	January, has involved friendly, vigorous and constructive engagement between the Government and the Opposition. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), for the way in which she led on the Bill until the final prize was taken from her grasp and given to me. I also pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his colleague, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), for their constructive engagement in ensuring a strengthened and even better Bill at the end of the process than it was at the beginning. That is what Parliament is all about—making sure that we get the right answers to the questions posed. I think that the Bill as it was originally drafted was very good but, by listening and engaging, we have been able to strengthen it further, and this short debate has illustrated the co-operative way in which both sides have engaged in the process.
	I could not finish without thanking those who are often the unsung heroes of the process of taking a Bill through Committee. Members in this House and the other place do not know their names and rarely see the hard work that they do day in, day out. They are, of course, the civil servants in the Department for Transport and its Bill team. They have worked extremely hard to ensure that our proceedings could go as smoothly as possible and that all the amendments were analysed properly, so that only those that merited it were accepted, even in modified form. I pay tribute to them and to all Members who have contributed so much to the Bill, both in this place and in another place, and I look forward to its becoming law, because it is badly needed to upgrade the existing legislation, which dates back to 1982.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed  to .
	Lords amendments 2 to 72 agreed to .

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Autism

Robert Buckland: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of autism.
	This is a wide-ranging topic for debate, but deliberately so. I hope that we will have time to discuss the varying aspects of this lifelong condition in relation both to children and young people and, of course, to adults.
	As is now widely known, the term “autism” covers a range of conditions on the autism spectrum, including Asperger’s syndrome, with a hard “g,” if you please. In this, the 50th anniversary year of the creation of the National Autistic Society, which is now part of a thriving group of organisations and campaigning bodies, today offers an opportunity not merely to look back at the progress that has been made, but, most importantly, to look forward to improvements to the way in which we diagnose, educate and support people with autism.
	I believe that I am correct in saying that this is the first time, apart from a 10-minute rule Bill that I introduced last year, that a specific debate on autism has been held on the Floor of the House during this Parliament. The last time that the issue was debated here was during the passage of what is now the Autism Act 2009. It is my pleasure to pay warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) for her redoubtable stewardship of a private Member’s Bill that, after initial opposition from the then Government, made its way, in amended form, on to the statute book. It required the Government to create an adult autism strategy and to set out guidelines for local authorities and health bodies in England to support adults with autism.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should go down the route of finding work for young people who have autism, Asperger’s or any other special need and getting them into full-time employment when they finish formal education?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I pay tribute to the work that he does in his constituency of Ilford North, through a joint initiative with local businesses, to obtain sponsorship and support to help young adults and adults with Asperger’s or autism into the workplace. We need to send out the message loud and clear that, far from looking at people with autism as a problem, we should be celebrating the great gifts that they have and their potential to be constructive members of the workplace.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to ensure that I did not misinterpret him when I heard him imply that the previous Government were forced to do something. There was a debate about the Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), but in the end she persuaded the Government and we brought forward the first autism strategy. That has led to improvements on the ground. It is important to say
	that this has been a cross-party drive, and it is much-needed because there are huge gaps for children and adults with autism. I just want to be clear at the beginning that the right hon. Lady’s drive had full Labour party and cross-party support.

Robert Buckland: I want to ensure that today’s debate takes place in that cross-party spirit. Members from all parts of the House warmly supported the provisions of the 2009 Act. I appreciate that Governments have conflicting priorities and pressures on their time. It was through the support of all parts of the House that that private Member’s Bill became law. There is a common purpose in the Chamber today, in relation to both the progress that has been made and our aspirations for our constituents who have autism and their families.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman and others for securing this debate. Will he note that in Wales, the levels of employment among people with autism are worse, with 7% of those with autism being in full-time employment and a further 6% being in part-time employment? This House should join together in congratulating the Welsh Assembly Government, who have recently appointed an autism employment ambassador to champion the cause of those with autism in employment. That might be something that this Government would like to consider as well.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is concerning to hear that the figures in Wales are dramatically lower than those in England. Clearly, the Welsh Assembly Government have to take their own course. Anything that is designed to promote the interests of young adults and adults with autism and their route into work has to be welcomed. It is early days and I very much hope that we will see a dramatic improvement in those concerning statistics.

Stephen Metcalfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to improve the employment situation for people on the autism spectrum, whether in Wales or here in England, is to create greater understanding among adults and among people’s peers at an earlier age? Will he therefore join me in supporting the Anderson Foundation schools challenge, which aims to improve awareness in schools? Will he encourage colleagues to get involved in that and to encourage schools in their constituencies to sign up to it in order to raise and widen awareness of what the condition means to those who suffer from it?

Robert Buckland: I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. I am, of course, happy to support the Anderson Foundation schools challenge. It is already yielding fruit. Special schools in my constituency are taking part. It seems to be a constructive and practical way not only to raise awareness of autism among the general public, but to engage children and young people with the condition in actively doing things that emphasise the positive aspects of life with autism.

Mark Pritchard: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate; he is generous in allowing interventions. Does he agree that although councils, local education authorities, primary care trusts or their successors mostly do a good job, they need to
	co-ordinate their activities a little more and work closely together to ensure that people with autism—especially teenagers who have autism and physical disabilities—and their parents and families, get all the support they need?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend touches on a number of themes that I will develop in my speech, but his point about the complexity of conditions with which people present to the authorities is important and does not affect only autism. Often, complex physical and other conditions will present with autism, and I cannot emphasise enough the need for joined-up commissioning and thinking.
	I was talking about the adult autism strategy, which is due to be reviewed by the Government next year. It focuses on improved training, the development of local autism schemes, and a better way to plan and commission services for people with autism. Importantly, it emphasises the involvement of service users and their families—that perhaps sounds a bit trite, but it is often overlooked when services are developed. Services will be unhelpful if they are not developed with the full involvement and consent of those who use them.

Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is making a very constructive speech. When considering these problems as a whole, does he agree that more focus should be placed on the role of carers than has been the case so far? The National Autistic Society pointed out that only one in five carers has had the assessment involving local authorities to which they are entitled by law. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must change that?

Robert Buckland: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s tireless efforts for people with disabilities, including autism, over many years. He is right to say that we overlook the role of carers at our peril and we must all face up to and address the amount of work that carers do and the pressure they are put under, as well as the lack of support they have had to get used to. Comments about joined-up thinking immediately make me consider the role of carers, and when developing health and social care legislation we must remember that not only care for elderly people but lifetime care for people with disabilities cannot be overlooked.
	I was talking about the review of the adult autism strategy and my message to the Department of Health, and the Minister responsible for that review, is that we must ensure the National Audit Office report that was published earlier this summer is fully addressed. Although that report noted encouraging progress in many areas of the adult autism strategy, it stated that much more needs to be done to improve access to diagnostic services, personal budgets and social care assessments for people with autism.
	Let me set out some facts for the House. More than half a million people in this country have autism—about one in 100. If we include the families and carers of people with autism, more than 2 million people will be affected in some way. That is about 3,000 people in an average parliamentary constituency, according to studies by the Information Centre for Health and Social Care. As the parent of a child on the autism spectrum—like some other Members of this House—I am firmly in that category.
	Perhaps I should pause a moment to share with the House some of my experiences as a parent that have driven me to do everything I can, while I have the honour of being a Member of this place, to campaign for the interests of people with autism. It took quite a while for us, as parents, to acknowledge that things were not quite as we had expected with our child. People go through denial, guilt, anger and shame. However, we went through the difficult process with a firm realisation that we would do everything we could for our child. Like millions of other parents, I have been through that mill and come out on the other side, but I am left with the feeling that the system does not work. We are still very much obsessed with process and not outcome, and we seemingly encourage the creation of categories to fit children into rather than the other way around. Until we nail that problem, I am not sure that any of the changes we make, however well intentioned, will bring real change.
	Having said that, I remain an eternal optimist about our public services. I pay warm tribute to the legions of teachers, teaching assistants, speech and language therapists, health professionals, child psychologists and all the other people in the special needs field who work so hard day in, day out to help and support people who need their services. We are lucky in this country to have such a dedicated range of professionals.
	An estimated 88,000 school-age children have autism in England alone—that is about 1% of the total school population. Autistic children form the largest group of children in receipt of statements of special educational needs. The proposals in the children and families Bill will therefore affect them significantly.

Stephen Metcalfe: Is that 1% increasing or decreasing? My understanding is that, with better diagnosis and better understanding of who fits on the spectrum, the number is increasing. It is therefore vital that we get those services right.

Robert Buckland: My local experience, which I am sure is shared by many hon. Members, is that the rate of diagnosis is increasing. Some years ago, when my daughter was diagnosed, I was startled to learn that, in certain parts of the country, there were no diagnoses of girls with autism. That was not because there were no girls with autism, but because the specialisations needed to make the diagnosis were not there. I am afraid that that patchiness applies today. We are at the early stages of fully identifying the range of needs. I accept that, at times, diagnoses are made in the wrong category and that children with other conditions are diagnosed as autistic, but that is inevitable when the system seeks to ensure that the needs of children are addressed in an increasingly sophisticated way.
	I mentioned the need for parliamentarians and society to start viewing people with autism as people with huge potential. In a few years’ time, I want to stand here in the Chamber—or anywhere—and say that, in this country, we have cracked the code and ensured genuine opportunity for all people with autism and autism spectrum conditions.

Steve Brine: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate—he does such good work in this field. He has spoken very eloquently of his experiences as a parent. I have lost count of the number
	of parents who come to my surgery with an enormous folder after working so hard on behalf of their child. They are the ones with the sharp elbows, the time and the wherewithal to do all the reading and understanding, and to battle their child through the system. This debate is about the millions of children in this country who do not have such parental support, such as children in care, getting the same access to services as children whose parents can drive their way through the system.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am reminded of the famous quotation from F. E. Smith about the world offering glittering prizes to those with stout hearts and sharp swords—I think “sharp elbows” was the phrase my hon. Friend used. He is absolutely right. We need to move to a system where parents do not need to shout at the top of their voice to obtain provision for their child, or bang on the nearest door as loudly as possible or kick out at the authorities to get what they believe is in the best interests of their child. He is absolutely right about that.

Pat Glass: Is it not a sad indictment that, in my experience and the experience of many who work in this field, our behavioural schools are packed full of children from families that do not have sharp elbows? Those children are labelled behavioural, whereas children from families that have the ability to get a diagnosis are labelled autistic.

Robert Buckland: The hon. Lady has great experience in this field and it has been a pleasure to work with her since we entered into Parliament together. She is right. The category of behavioural difficulty is so often used as a repository for children who, in another context, would be treated differently. That is why, when it comes to diagnosis and identification of need, we have to do it better. We have to get better and better to ensure that children are in the right stream, the right school and the right environment. My worry—I know that she shares it—is that in labelling too many children in a behavioural category, we end up with children side by side in an inappropriate environment and in an unsuitable way that can be damaging to the child. I am grateful for her intervention.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. I just want to say that I am sorry that I cannot stay much longer, but I wanted to be here to show my support for what he has said.
	Following on from the previous intervention, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a role for educating health service practitioners to understand the early signs of autism, particularly Asperger’s? Is he as shocked as I am to hear of cases in my constituency of people being diagnosed with Asperger’s in their 50s, 60s, and even in their 70s? As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) said, that is an indictment of a system that is not working at the moment.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Like him, I know of many cases of people who have been diagnosed in late middle age. What a missed opportunity for those individuals. That is not just a waste for them, but a waste of resources when it comes to how Government agencies plan provision for autism and related conditions.

Cheryl Gillan: I join in congratulating my hon. Friend on securing the debate. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is absolutely right to raise the issue of the definition of autism. Regarding the explanatory notes to the Autism Act, it is important to remember that part of the intention of the review process of the autism strategy was to deal with the definitional issue and keep it under continual review so that we could respond more quickly to new developments than if the definition was included in primary legislation. I hope my hon. Friend would support me in ensuring that the Government visit and revisit this, so that the issue raised by the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) is considered seriously, and that we move on.

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We should all acknowledge that with increasing expertise and medical evidence the definitions will change and the way we approach autism will alter. Therefore, a statutory instrument is a more flexible mechanism than having to use parliamentary time to deal with all the concomitant difficulties involved in enshrining definitions in primary legislation. Superficially attractive though that often is, it can be a disadvantage to those with the condition.

Mark Lazarowicz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—he is being very generous with his time—and I congratulate him on securing this debate.
	Moving away from the Autism Act but on to the subject of people diagnosed with autism at a later stage, one issue that comes up is access to benefits and people’s encounters with the benefits system. I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts on how that aspect of provision could be improved to reflect the needs of people with autism, particularly older people whose condition has been recognised late.

Robert Buckland: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Just before that intervention is answered by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), to whom I always listen with huge interest and respect, I know that he will not mind if I point out to him and the House that nine Back Benchers and a couple of Front Benchers are still to contribute. I am keen to accommodate as many people as possible, consistent with hearing the continuation and conclusion of his excellent speech.

Robert Buckland: I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that I am watching the clock anxiously, and I will now make progress. I am grateful to hon. Members for their interventions.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) is right about the problem he illustrated: diagnosis is one thing but provision for older people with autism is another. Many older people to whom I speak tell me that, having had the diagnosis, they turn around and say, “Well, what now?” Very little happens after a diagnosis. Other speakers will deal with the point about assessment for benefits, but the message has to go out loud and clear that more training must be given to those responsible for conducting benefit assessments,
	so that what I call invisible conditions, such as autism, are fully understood by those conducting the assessments. I am sure that he, like me, will have had cases where that invisible condition was not recognised.
	I am grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has responsibility for the draft Children and Families Bill, is in his place. I want to highlight a report prepared last year by the all-party group on autism, which I have the honour of chairing. I know that he has been listening carefully to the points and recommendations made in the report, and I welcome his approach in listening to the points made and already making changes to some of the provisions in the Bill—for example, the inclusion of apprenticeships as part of the future education, health and social care plans. I approach my remarks today in that spirit of engagement and listening.
	I mentioned the all-party group’s report. Our inquiry included an online survey in which nearly 1,000 respondents took part. It is, I believe, an authoritative and useful source of information when it comes to the development of policy. Among other things, we recommended that local authorities establish local training needs for special needs and identify where specialist autism knowledge is available to local schools. The funding for specialist training programmes for teachers has to be an important part of that, and we look to the Government for their continued support.
	We were concerned about the exclusion of children and young people with autism. They often result, sadly, in lives that turn into criminal justice issues, huge wasted opportunities and expensive mistakes that cost our country dear. We are concerned that schools with a high number of exclusions, permanent or fixed-term, should not be graded as outstanding or good in terms of behaviour, because we regard exclusions as a badge of failure. I say that with respect to all the professionals involved. I understand that it is often difficult to manage young people with autism and other conditions, but exclusions are not the way to deal with the problem. All they do is push the problem on to another agency. It is the equivalent of kicking the can down the road. That is a phrase we often here in this place, but it is what is happening to young people with these conditions far too often.
	The all-party group also emphasised that the new system should ensure that all children with autism, whether they have a statement or not, have access to the necessary support, and that there be a lead teacher for autism in every school. We must not forget that children currently in receipt of help under the school action or school action plus schemes might not have needs that are acute enough to merit a statement or an education, health and social care plan, but their needs will remain none the less. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s observations about children in that category.

Mark Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Buckland: I am afraid I need to press on.
	There is also a need for joint commissioning of services, which is something that other contributors have touched on. In Swindon, which I represent, joint commissioning
	is already happening—we are seeing joined-up thinking, working and action—but in many places there remains a dislocation between health and education. Putting it bluntly, without the proper involvement of local health agencies, these reforms just will not work. The role of health and wellbeing boards, which were set up under recent health legislation, will be pivotal in ensuring proper joint working. I therefore urge my hon. Friend to do all he can as an Education Minister to ensure that other arms of government are doing all they can to ensure that education, health and social care plans knit together and provide a continuum of care.
	I wanted to talk about accountability; very briefly, I will say this. Unless parents and carers feel that there are proper lines of accountability in decisions about their children, the system will not get the confidence it needs. Therefore, a proper and effective complaints system, encompassing all state-funded schools, must be put in place. I accept that school governors and Ofsted will have a role to play in the process, but personal action plans—agreements that will provide objective measurements of progress for parents to measure their schools against—are essential. This is not about bureaucracy for the sake of it; it is simply about ensuring that we can harness the earnest energy of parents to ensure the system works as best it can.
	I welcome the proposals for local offers on SEN. I accept that local agencies will need to develop their own services, but I caution the Government in this respect. A national framework within which local offers can be developed will be necessary. The analogy I draw is between the system we have in health—where guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence provide a framework within which local commissioners can develop services—and a system that I believe could work well in education. Such a system would ensure that parents and carers knew there was a basic standard to which the local offer would be made.
	We have already touched on the problems and challenges facing young adults with autism going into the world of work. We have heard some depressing statistics in Wales. In England, one in four children with autism obtains some form of education or training after leaving school. That means that three out of every four do not have those opportunities. Some 25% of graduates with autism are unemployed, which is the highest proportion among any disability group. Fewer than one in seven adults with autism are in full-time employment, which is why I am encouraged that the Government are to extend the regime of education, health and social care plans right up to the age of 25. That is vital and acknowledges the fact that many young people with autism develop very much at their own pace—in a way that does not conform to the primary, secondary and tertiary stages of education—and it does so in a way that will allow them to develop and mature into adulthood. However, we do not want to move the cliff edge from 19 to 25. We have to ensure that the transition into adulthood after 25—after the end of the plans—is smooth and planned, and inspires confidence not only among those young adults, but among their families and carers.
	The age in which people with these conditions are categorised as needing to be dealt with in a little box in the corner has ended, but we are now in a transitional phase. We have not yet created the systems that will allow the integration of such people into the mainstream
	of our national, social, economic and political life. I very much hope that today’s debate will, in some small way, be yet another milestone along that important road, so that in the years ahead, we as parliamentarians can say that we did all that we could to ensure that a minority with so much to offer was allowed to play its part at the heart of our life.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) for securing the debate and for his fine speech. I should also like to say how much I value working with him on the all-party group on autism. For many people watching this debate on television, their usual view of Parliament will be the robust exchanges that they see on a Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, and I confess that I play a part in that, as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition. For me, however, Parliament is more about debates such as this, when we come together across geographical and party lines to try to progress an issue of great importance to our constituents. Such debates reveal what this Parliament should be all about.
	Like the hon. Gentleman, I have to declare an interest in that I have a son with autism. That explains much of my involvement in the issue and in the work of the all-party group. I would like to pay tribute to the work of the National Autistic Society for its campaigning and for the services that it provides, as well as for providing parents with hope and with help when they need it most. When a parent first becomes aware, perhaps through a teacher or through their own intuition, that their child might have autism, the resources of the National Autistic Society will invariably be the first that they access to learn more about it. The role that the society plays is vital.
	I welcome the intentions of the Government, as revealed in their Green Paper. We all want a more joined-up system that is easier for parents to access and that makes it easier for young people with autism to get the support they need. I know that a lot of parents have concerns; I hear them from my own constituents as well as from people who contact me as an officer of the all-party group, and I would like to go into those in some detail. As I understand it, however, the Government’s intentions are good.
	At present, it is too much of a fight to get what our children need. Parents always tell me that local authorities are reluctant to give a statement, telling them that they do not need it, that they can have the same support without it, and that it is unnecessary because their child is doing fine. That is wrong. Too often, only those people who are really prepared or equipped to take on the system will get what they need, as the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) pointed out.

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend is making a very well informed speech. With regard to local authorities, does he agree that there are major gaps? For example, only 9% of people with autism are entered into the system for speech therapy, perhaps because their GP has recommended it. Local authorities ought to be defining these matters much more clearly, and we should encourage them in the debate today to take a proper role in these important issues.

Jonathan Reynolds: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I also agreed with the hon. Member for South Swindon when he said that the current system was not working as it should. I understand why local authorities are reluctant to award legally binding entitlements. They are concerned about how they will pay for them. The underfunding of local authorities at the moment is a scandal, but that is another debate.
	When a parent needs support for their child, nothing other than the support that they require will do, as I think we can all recognise. There is some wonderful specialist provision in this country—when it can be accessed. Last September, my son transferred from mainstream education to a special school that is outstanding. To know, as a parent, that one’s child is finally getting the support that they need is an indescribable feeling, but our mission must be to ensure that more parents know that feeling.
	The main point I want to raise concerns parents’ rights, and I shall also talk about the length of time during which we support young people with autism. The Minister will be aware of the concerns raised by some parents that the draft Bill, rather than extending parents’ rights, gives the impression of wanting to cut them. Parents need the continued right to request statutory assessments and to have statutory time scales for receiving them. I understand that the Government have given evidence saying that they do not want to diminish these rights, but feelings are running high on this issue. Rumours abound that, in some areas, local authorities are receiving training that might allow them to refuse assessments to children of average cognitive ability. This would completely exclude from the system children with Asperger’s syndrome and those with dyslexia or visual or hearing impairments. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some assurance on this matter and, ideally, tell us that the draft provisions will be amended to include these rights.
	I would also be reassured to know that the new education and health care plans, which will replace statements of special educational needs, will carry the same legal force. This means making it a mandatory duty for a local authority to deliver what a child needs, and not simply to use “best endeavours” to secure appropriate provision. In the current funding climate, my worry would be that that will not be sufficient to get children what they need.
	In addition, I would like it to be a requirement that parents will be informed of their right to appeal the results of a statutory assessment and will have some clarification of what the process will be. Is it correct, for instance, that the education part of the EHC plans will be appealed to the special educational needs and disability tribunal, but that the plan’s health and social services provision can be appealed only by judicial review? It would seem odd to separate these two vital areas of provision when the plans are partly designed to integrate them. Again, this would mean added complexity for parents.
	Finally, any new legal regime inevitably means that important points have to be fought over again, as new case law is required. For instance, are speech and language therapies educational or health provision? Where does something like physiotherapy count? All these issues could be made much simpler through Government guidance, reducing the amount of things parents have
	to fight over. I am sure that many charities and this House, through such groups as the all-party group, could play a role in helping to deliver some of that.

David Burrowes: There is often not much advocacy when it comes to the issue of funding for speech and language therapy. I know from my professional life as a solicitor that a disproportionate number of young people in the criminal justice system have autism. They are often not even able to communicate due to the lack of speech and language therapy and indeed to the lack of proper assessment and identification of the problem, particularly when they are in custody. Does the hon. Gentleman think that this is another issue in respect of which we need at the very least continuity of care when young people go into custody and also better identification of autism and better provision of speech and language therapy?

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, and I absolutely agree with him. It reminds me of the previous point about how, because the system does not work adequately, so many young people—and older people too—have ended up in inappropriate areas, whether it be in the justice system or in behavioural therapies, when what they need is the right support: it may be available, but they have been unable to access it.
	As I have highlighted a number of concerns about parents’ rights, I would like to say how incredibly heartened I am—the hon. Member for South Swindon mentioned this, too—by the Government’s proposal to increase the age at which we support young people with autism up to 25. Let us not stop that support for a young person when they leave school or further education; let us keep it there so a young person can still get support if they return to education after taking on an apprenticeship or employment.

Michael Connarty: I commend my hon. Friend, and indeed the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), for conveying their personal experience. I spent 14 years of my life as a teacher in special education and, as we have heard, many children have difficulties because they are on the spectrum. Is my hon. Friend aware that when people leave education formally—whether it be at 16 or 18—they immediately lose their disability living allowance and have to reapply for it as adults? Many people then become slightly alienated from parental help and other services. One service that he has not mentioned is social services. There should be not just health and education services, but social services and a statutory duty on the employment services to take on these people, with a duty of care, which does not exist at the moment in any department or any jurisdiction in the UK.

Jonathan Reynolds: Again, that is an excellent point. Outcomes and employment transitions for young people are hard for all young people, but they are particularly hard for young people with autism. Any extra support or assistance we can give to make that easier is definitely worth looking at.
	On teacher training, I am always conscious that we ask teachers to be given training on so many issues, particularly those that interest us as parliamentarians. Ideally, we would get them to cover a huge amount of things, but that is not possible. However, there are a significant number of children with autism in the education system, and any additional training or guidance that could be given to teachers to increase their awareness not just of the condition itself but of its complexity, and the fact that it is different for every child on the spectrum, would be extremely advantageous. The work of the Autism Education Trust has already had a very successful impact, and I think we all hope that it will be possible for that work to continue.
	We know that for too many of the families of people with autism the process of obtaining support is too hard, that we need to make it better, and that there are many organisations and bodies that could help us to do that. I welcome the Government’s initial steps in that regard, but I hope that they will also take on board some of the points that I have raised, which I am sure will also be raised by other Members. If we can make access to support for young people with autism just a little bit easier, we will have done the right thing by those young people and done a great service to their families. We will also have done the right thing by the education system, and gone some way towards ensuring that every child has a chance to fulfil his or her potential.

Cheryl Gillan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), and I pay tribute to him for his speech. It is good to know that here in Parliament we do not always shout and bray at each other, but sometimes work together with a common purpose and for the common good. In the same spirit, I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), the children’s Minister, to the Front Bench. I also welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker: you have taken a great deal of personal interest in this subject, and I pay tribute to you and your work in that regard.
	Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) that I am delighted that this is the subject on which I am making my first speech from the Back Benches for a very long time. It is a subject close to my heart because of my Private Member’s Bill, which was a truly co-operative affair involving Members in all parts of the House. However, the debate also gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to all the families and parents who sent the hundreds of e-mails that enabled us to secure a Second Reading for the Bill, and to put on the statute book what I think was the first, and is still the only, disability-specific piece of legislation in the country.
	One of the hidden heroines of that process was my great friend Baroness Browning, who did so much to further the cause. I talked to her just before the debate. She continues to raise these matters regularly in the other place, and I want the Minister to know about an issue that is challenging her particularly at the moment. She is very concerned—as, I am sure, are many Members of this House—about the assessments that are being conducted for the Government, especially those conducted by Atos. I ask the Minister to acknowledge that concern,
	and to ensure that people with enough experience of autism spectrum disorders are able to make the fair assessments that we all want.
	That concern—along with many others that have been expressed in the two speeches that we have already heard—is reflected across the board. It is felt that there is still a great deal to be done. Research by many organisations, including the Back-Bench all-party group but also the National Autistic Society, indicates that people are still having to battle and fight to secure the right support for family members. This year the NAS celebrates 50 years of providing advice and support, and its research illustrates that ongoing battle. Nearly 50% of the parents who responded to a survey that it conducted recently said that they were still having to wait for more than a year to obtain the right support for their children, and 25% were having to wait for two years. That cannot be right in this day and age, given the knowledge of autism that we now have.
	Delays in obtaining access to support can have a significant impact. Nearly 70% of those parents said that the progress of their children’s education had suffered because of the lack of timely support, and I am sure that that is echoed in the experience of some of the parents of children with autism who are in the House today. I also think that such delays always result in poorer outcomes for children and young people with autism. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon knows that only 15% of adults with autism are in full-time employment, but one of the statistics he gave was 1% short. In fact, the disability task group in Sheffield said 26% of graduates with autism are unemployed, and that is the highest rate for any disability group.

Angela Watkinson: I know my right hon. Friend has long taken an interest in this subject, but may I recommend to her the ROSE—Realistic Opportunities for Supported Employment—project in my constituency, which transfers such students from further education colleges into employment, and provides support that is gradually withdrawn as they become more independent? That is an example of good practice which I am sure my right hon. Friend would like to see copied throughout the country.

Cheryl Gillan: Certainly one way to maximise the potential of people with autism is to follow such examples of good practice. The all-party group might want to address these issues in the future. If we want to be hard-nosed about this subject, we could refer to a National Audit Office report published when the Autism Act 2009 was going through this House, which showed that if local services identified and supported just 4% of adults with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s syndrome, the outlay would become cost-neutral over time, and if they did the same for just 8% of such adults, that could save the Government some £67 million a year.
	I worked very closely with the NAS during the passage of the Autism Bill, so I know that it strongly supports the Government’s proposed reforms to the special educational needs system. It especially welcomes the introduction of joint co-operation and commissioning duties, the extension of SEN law to cover academies and free schools, and the education, health and care plans for young people up to the age of 25, which will replace the statements.
	The NAS has raised some concerns, however, and it speaks from a position of great strength. It runs seven schools for children with autism, and it is setting up an autism free school—in our area, Mr Speaker, of the Thames valley. The new NAS Anderson school in Bristol works with children to address the challenges they face, with the specific aim of helping them move back into community-based mainstream provision. The NAS knows from experience that these new schools are set up in response to great local need and are anchored in their communities. It is essential that children with complex needs can have access to such independent special schools, but I understand there is some concern that under the new system parents may not be able to express a preference for such schools in an education, health and care plan. I urge the Minister to ensure that such schools can be accessed by those who need them.
	This debate has focused on the SEN reforms, but the Autism Act 2009 was borne out of a recognition that the specific needs of adults with autism were often overlooked by service designers at the local level and therefore they consistently missed out and did not get the help they needed. Unfortunately, that is reflected in recent NAS research. Some two-thirds of adults with autism are not getting the help they need.
	It is vital that we get education provision right. Local authorities must ensure that they not only educate themselves, but implement the Department of Health adult autism strategy in a way that addresses local needs. In working with young people with autism and their families, local authorities must plan at the strategic level for local services and develop individually tailored plans to ensure that children with autism are supported into adulthood and can enter employment and live independently in our communities.
	The adult strategy will be reviewed in 2013. That gives us an important opportunity to consider these matters. It also gives us a chance to celebrate improvements —there have been improvements—but we must not ignore the fact that there is still so much more that we need to do. I particularly urge the Minister to take on board the fact that he needs to work with his colleagues at the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions, and with many others, including Members of this House, to ensure that the proposals to reform SEN are fully linked to the work on the autism strategy.

Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who has done so much in this field, for giving way. On that point, does she agree that there is something wrong? We have been reminded that only 15% of people with autism are in full-time jobs and only 6% are in part-time jobs, which represents a loss of talent that is wrong not only for the individual but for society.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful for the intervention and am second to none in my admiration for the right hon. Gentleman, who has given far more to this matter over the years than I could ever hope to. His record speaks for itself.
	The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When I was preparing my Bill, I talked to an employer who employed high-functioning adults with autism and Asperger’s. I asked how he coped with having employees with Asperger’s, and he said he really liked it because he
	could be sure that they would do the same task and make the same check over and over again. Quality control was not needed at all because of the excellence of the work of those individuals. We need to recognise that people with autism can be a great benefit to a business or an industry and they are certainly not a liability or somebody who is just taken on to make up the numbers. The right hon. Gentleman’s intervention was very valuable and I wish that more employers would take on people who are on the spectrum.
	Finally, parents and people involved in autism often refer to reaching the transition age as falling off a cliff. In my experience, it was less like the romantic idea of falling off a cliff and more like falling into a dark black hole. The Government must continue the work carried out by the previous Government and ensure that the Department of Health and others make sure that when young people with autism reach adulthood their needs are planned for and met by other services so that the black hole does not simply move to the age of 25, as many people fear it might.
	We have come a long way in understanding autism , but we have a long way to go in understanding the spectrum and the challenges it presents to Governments and to individuals and their families. The case of Gary McKinnon brought autism back to the forefront of people’s minds and we must ensure that we do not forget the condition. It has been a Cinderella condition; this is the first debate on the subject in three years. We need to cast more light on it and to ensure that as a Government we gain lasting and positive change for people with autism so that they can achieve their full potential in our society. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

John McDonnell: I thank the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) for securing the debate and for the sterling work he and others do on the all-party group.
	I came to this issue in the same way as most other Members of the House. After being elected in 1997, I dealt with case after case of families trying to fight their way through the statementing system. Families would come to me with packed files of different reports and threats of legal action. In addition, I was dealing with an adult aged 29 who had just then been diagnosed as being on the spectrum with Asperger’s. I accept that Asperger’s is a relatively recent diagnosis, but he had gone through school and into adulthood without any real support.
	When I came to the House I sought the support of any other Member who had any experience, and the best advice I received was Angela Browning, now Baroness Browning. She befriended me and took me step by step through the processes to secure for my constituents at least some access to services and their rights. That is how I became engaged in the subject.
	When the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) fought her sterling fight to enact the Autism Bill, I was put on the Committee. It was rare in those days for me to be on any Committee,
	so it was clearly a subject on which I could not have done much damage. The right hon. Lady led a superb campaign that was subtle as well as incisive. It mobilised organisations and individuals across the country, the letters campaign worked, there were constructive discussions with Ministers and we managed to get a consensus across the House.
	I want to touch on two points, one in relation to adults and the other in relation to children. The work that was done then has had a widespread effect on a large range of organisations, some of which would not be expected to engage on the subject. For the first time, the trade union movement has taken up the issue. The RMT is running a series of seminars on autism to support its members at work who are on the spectrum or who have family members who are on the spectrum—a major breakthrough. I pay tribute to Janine Booth, who is on the executive of the RMT. To give Bob Crow his due, the union has supported the seminars 100%. I attended the first one and the second is to be held tomorrow.
	What has come out is a thorough discussion of the scale of discrimination encountered just to get into work and once people are in work. There are some appalling examples of people being ostracised. That is why the union now says that it has a role in ensuring that recruitment practices are fair and non-discriminatory, and in representing its members when they are in work to make sure they are not discriminated against. Those discussions have highlighted some real problems and the need to look into employment discrimination and perhaps to tighten the legislation to prevent discrimination.
	I have to refer to the Atos system and applications for disability benefits that was set in motion by the previous Government. The Harrington reviews have been conducted, but the system is not working. Those turning up for Atos assessments are being assessed by people with no specialist knowledge of the subject area. That is causing immense distress and, yes, loss of benefit and loss of all income. We need to look again at that process. I have tabled various early-day motions. I am so frustrated by it that I think the system needs to be scrapped and that we should start again.
	I pay tribute to organisations that are campaigning on the matter—Disabled People Against Cuts in this country, and Black Triangle in Scotland. It is worth reading the Spartacus report that was published two weeks ago, which gives individual examples. Large numbers of examples have been collected, showing how people have been treated and what they feel. In the cases I have been dealing with, many people who are on the spectrum are lost within the system and as a result lose benefit and are living in poverty. Often they are desperate to work.
	The other issue is local authority cuts. In my area, speech and language therapy is being cut again and the local authority is no longer commissioning the service from the local health trust. That is having an impact. I have sat in on speech and language sessions over recent months. They are fundamentally important for early diagnosis and early intervention—pre-school intervention wherever possible. Children’s centres identify children who may not have been picked up in the past. I am worried that the pressure on local authority resources is having an impact on such specialist services.
	I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). I work closely with a group in my constituency, Hillingdon Autistic Care and Support. Some wonderful people set it up and worked with our local authority on a cross-party basis. They have taken over one of our children’s centres and they bring parents together and provide direct services. They display a superb understanding and appreciation of families’ individual needs. A couple of weeks ago, the group held a meeting where all the parents turned up to talk about the new legislative proposals and voice their concerns.
	The existing system may have been difficult to battle through, and we were looking for reform to make it easier, but not to undermine some of the basic securities. At least when parents got a statement, they knew what rights they had, what was to be delivered and the time scales involved, and they could use that to enforce the supply of services. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, however, there is now confusion about whether there is still a real right to request an assessment, and anxiety about whether the “best endeavours” wording is specific enough to define the nature of the services that are to be provided, as of right, or the time scales on which they will be provided. There are real worries among families.

Edward Timpson: I will discuss that point in my response to the debate, but I think it will help Members if at this stage I clarify what I said to the Select Committee last week about the rights that parents now have in relation to statements and what flows from them, and what we aim to achieve with the new system. Let me make it absolutely clear that the rights parents have in the current system will flow through to the new system—in fact, in many areas they will be enhanced through the introduction of a longer transition up to the age of 25.

John McDonnell: I welcome—everyone welcomes—the longer transition, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde made that point. It would be useful to get it on the record that people want the specific right of the appeal that has existed since the Education Act 1981 to be endorsed in the new legislation as well. We need to give people security that that will happen, and if that is what the Minister is saying, that is incredibly helpful.
	Mandatory mediation also came up in the group discussion. I have never known mandatory mediation to work in any walk of life. If people are not willing to go into mediation, it does not usually work. To have mandatory mediation that involves penalties as well is, I think, completely counterproductive, but it has worried people, and on that ground a rethink is needed, and perhaps further clarification about how that will be introduced is needed. The parents, who got a lawyer to take them through what they envisaged the new system would be, wrote to me to say that what they had seen was extremely complex. My hon. Friend made the point about the difficulty of knowing what is referable to a tribunal. Is it now only education matters? What about health and other matters—where can they be referred to and where can parents appeal? Getting some clarity and simplicity in the system is critical.
	In some cases in my area we have had to resort to law, using legal aid. There is therefore some anxiety about some of the restrictions on access to legal aid. Some clarity about that would be extremely helpful.
	Everyone has their own experience and some of these cases are the most distressing I have ever dealt with, but I read John Harris’s piece in The Guardian a few months ago and recommend it to other hon. Members, because it summarised for me exactly what many of the parents in my area have gone through. They have been fighting their way through the system and then the Government come along and promise the opportunity of improving it, but now many fear that, in fact, we may be going backwards unless we get secure commitments from the Government.

Angela Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that a problem for families who have a child on the autistic spectrum that often goes unnoticed or unmentioned is the financial burden. Often, because the child has poorly developed gross motor skills and co-ordination, there is lots of accidental damage in the home, with items such as televisions, washing machines and carpets having to be replaced quite frequently, so in addition to all the challenges he has just listed, there is also a hidden financial burden of which most people are unaware.

John McDonnell: I am glad that the hon. Lady makes that point, which I should have made earlier, because it is absolutely critical. We can get all these rights, but we need to be able to finance them, and it is not only local authorities and other services that provide that funding, because families often have to complement it. That needs to be taken into account in the benefits system.
	I will give another example. When it comes to housing for families with a child on the spectrum—I have families in my constituency who have more than one child on the spectrum—one of the biggest clamours is for a garden so that they can play outside. I have dealt with one such family who were allocated a house by the local authority—it was in the private sector—that was on a busy road near a roundabout and had no front garden. That was a particular problem, because when the door was opened the child could run straight out on to the road.
	There are many issues that must be dealt with when addressing the complex needs of individual families. That is why we had hoped that the new legislation would show a broad understanding and acceptance of the complexity of what individuals and families have to go through and at least have a faster and more simplified system that gave greater security. The message I am getting from the parents and local organisations I have met is that they are very fearful that their existing rights, limited though they may be, and the existing system, however difficult it may be, might be undermined and that everything we were hoping for in the new system will not be achieved.
	I hope that, as a result of this debate—this is why I welcome it—we can improve some of the Government’s proposals and that they can then take away some of the concerns that have been expressed today to ensure that we get the legislation we all need and want.

Caroline Nokes: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on securing the debate. It is a subject that is dear to his heart and on which he has considerable knowledge and experience. I thank him for his very personal insights. I do not share his expertise —I make no bones about it—but I share his commitment when it comes to ensuring that the young people, in particular, in my constituency get the best possible deal from the upcoming children and families Bill.
	Earlier this year I had the privilege of visiting the TreeHouse school in Muswell Hill, the home of the national charity Ambitious about Autism, to meet staff, volunteers and pupils and hear at first hand about the excellent work that goes on there. The school was set up in 1997 by a group of parents whose children had been diagnosed with severe autism. As they say, their ambition is to make the ordinary possible for more children and young people.
	TreeHouse school provides children with specialist, intensive and integrated support to enable them to learn, thrive and achieve. It focuses on enabling communication and working with children with severe autism to give them a means of communicating with the outside world. It seeks to maximise their learning opportunities and, crucially, prepare them for a world outside school, one with employment opportunities, through the experiences of travel, recreation and enjoyment that every child deserves. I recall, in particular, the shop that had been set up within the school to enable pupils to experience both buying and selling everyday items, and I remember the hairdresser’s and the dentist’s, which encouraged young people to understand that what might currently be unfamiliar to them can be learned and, in time, accepted. I applaud the commitment and dedication of the staff, who strive to ensure the best outcome for every single pupil, however difficult the challenges.
	My visit has since provoked a number of questions, because two aspects of the school have stuck in my mind. The first thing that struck me was how hard some parents had to fight—I use the word advisedly, as have many right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon—to get their child a place at TreeHouse school, having struggled with statements and funding, which invariably meant that their child’s arrival at the school was delayed far longer than was good for them.
	I asked the staff about children who did not manage to get a place at the school until they were 12, 13 or 14-years-old and asked whether they would have been better off had they arrived sooner. The staff spoke of their ambition to reduce the age at which they took children so that specialist help could be available far earlier, developmental delays did not happen and specialist help was available. That would mean that children would not spend years locked within themselves and unable to communicate with the outside world before ever being given the specialist therapies that enabled them to communicate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) spoke eloquently about the long and unacceptable delays which, in this day and age, we must do more to shorten.
	The second question that my visit provoked was “What happens next?” When young, and indeed not so young, people with autism leave TreeHouse school,
	what security is there for them? What help is there to support them to enable them to lead as independent a life as possible? Post-16 is a difficult time for any child, let alone one on the autistic spectrum. Equally, what help is there for their families and carers who also go through very difficult years? That is why it is absolutely imperative that we get the best possible outcome from the children and families Bill. It is so important that turning 16 should not narrow the opportunities for young people on the autistic spectrum. Their education, health and care plan must be able to include provision by independent specialists, voluntary and private training providers, and, importantly, apprenticeships and higher education institutions. I want sufficient flexibility within these plans to enable young people to re-enter training or education after a gap to facilitate the sort of transition to adult life that gives them maximum support and assistance. An annual review, even if they are not in education, would enable local authorities to monitor progress and ensure that all young people with autism are receiving the support to which they are entitled.
	I welcome the extension of statutory duties up to the age of 25, but it is very important to have the structured support needed to make sure that the transition is as smooth as possible. That is why I applaud the work carried out at Squirrels, a residential unit in my constituency for young people aged between 16 and 25 with autistic spectrum disorders. Its focus is on precisely that period—the difficult transition from school to adulthood. It works with its residents to firmly establish the skills of looking after themselves, improving their social inclusion, and continuing their learning development. As at TreeHouse school, there is a particular focus on communication skills through intensive speech and language therapy, and an emphasis on self-management and independence in preparation for a future life in the community. That is a very significant role not only for Squirrels but for every single organisation working with young people on the autistic spectrum. In Chilworth, where Squirrels is located, the residents can often be found on accompanied trips into the village. I well remember last summer attending the fun day to mark the opening of the new play area and village green. Many residents from Squirrels were present, integrating into the local community and having a very good time. They often visit the local shop and the pub. Such time spent in the community is absolutely central to young people’s development.
	I am sure, Mr Speaker, that I do not have to tell you that tonight Ambitious about Autism celebrates its 15th anniversary. It describes itself as being 15 years young, and it has certainly been on an incredible journey filled with optimism and, as its name suggests, ambition. Its bold vision and determination continues to pioneer education for children with autism. This debate is therefore a timely opportunity to celebrate its commitment, its achievements to date, and, as with so many young people with autism, its future potential.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) for bringing this matter to the House and for the compassion and knowledge that he portrayed from his own personal experiences. It is good to have such debates because they focus a lot of attention on issues to which we can all relate—in my case, not necessarily as the hon. Gentleman
	and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) did but through interaction with my constituents and what they tell me.
	I have been involved in the support of autism for many years in Northern Ireland, as have my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Our constituency work brought us into contact with those who have autistic children and those who care for them. The hon. Member for South Swindon neatly put the issue into perspective when he mentioned all the emotions that people go through, as do the constituents who come to see me. These wee boys and girls react in the same way as others except that they are a wee bit more energetic. That might simplify the situation but it is the way that I would look at it.
	I want to give an example of one wee autistic boy whom I know very well. His parents do everything for him—they wash, cook, dress and feed him, and clean, bath and toilet him. The mum and dad do all of those things for their wee boy. They amuse him and hug, kiss and love him. He depends on his parents for his every need. When he is at school, they do the washing, ironing, cleaning and shopping, and they try to find time to work in order to pay the bills. That is what having an autistic child means—their parents have more to do than those of other children.
	They love their son with all that they have—every bit of their love—and all that they are but, sadly, love is not enough to get the family through the sheer exhaustion and the emotional and mental strain. I have seen clearly the emotional and mental strain on those constituents I have spoken to and those parents of wee boys and wee girls whom I have met. There is a financial strain, an emotional strain and a physical strain, and all those things are sometimes overwhelming. That is why I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate. Perhaps, in a small way, it will lead to support for those people.
	Every Member who has spoken so far has brought their knowledge and experience to bear. It is almost as if everybody has brought an ingredient to the master chef, the Minister, who will put them in a big pot, mix them all together and produce a lovely, palatable meal. I am sure that that is not how it will be done, but we look forward to his response. We as elected representatives can do many things to help young boys and young girls in our communities, but we also have to support them and offer them the best that our society can give to ensure that they do not reach the point of no return.
	I do not know whether the Minister and other Members know about the Northern Ireland perspective, but if they do, that is good. I believe that we in Northern Ireland—I say this respectfully—lead the way on autism. The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), who has just joined us, was involved in the Northern Ireland Assembly’s autism legislation, so the three of us—her, me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim—have an interest in the issue and contributed to that legislative change. The Assembly introduced the Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which is the most comprehensive autism and single disability legislation in the whole of Europe. I do not say that lightly; if hon. Members check it, they will see that that is the case.
	I want to explain how all three of us contributed to that development at the Assembly. The Act is the first piece of legislation in Northern Ireland that requires all Government Departments to plan and work together on the delivery of a strategy. The strategy is unique, because it addresses the challenge of a five-party, power-sharing Executive working together across the whole of society to try to introduce something that works. I have to say that that is not the case in this House, but I hope that it will be with the draft Bill. Perhaps the House could take that message on board. I think that legislation similar to that which exists in Northern Ireland should be implemented here, and I hope that it will be when the time comes to debate the draft Bill.
	Although I am aware that Northern Ireland legislation is unique, this place has to consider it and its relevance to all the other countries that make up the United Kingdom. I am happy that Northern Ireland has seen the need for and led the way with ground-breaking legislation.
	Autism NI was at the centre of the campaign for the 2011 Act and used a grass-roots campaign. There was no money or external lobby company, just hard work and determination to gain support from every Member of the Legislative Assembly. It approached that by having autism ambassadors and health and education spokespersons from all the parties in order to build up expertise on issues of concern and bring everything—the ingredients that I mentioned earlier and other contributions —together. It also formed a partnership with Autism Cymru, which was already working with the Welsh Government on implementing a Wales autism strategy, and that formed the foundations of the Celtic Nations Autism Partnership, which also includes Scottish Autism and the Irish Society for Autism. We cast our net wide to get all the information. That has led to initiatives in the USA, a visit by the partnership and MLAs to the US Congress, and a visit to the European Parliament to initiate a partnership with Autism-Europe and MEPs on the development of a European autism strategy.
	Hon. Members have spoken about the statementing of children. Every week, somebody comes to my office to talk about statementing and the delays in the process. Northern Ireland now has a system that enables the process to run more smoothly than it did in the past. There are still hiccups in the system and wee problems to overcome, but the Northern Ireland Assembly has legislated to put a system in place, with all the parties and all the Government bodies working together.

William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that it is vital for the Minister to liaise with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive, not only to see what we have done, but to see whether there are things that are not working out as we thought they would?

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. We want to exchange our ideas and to ensure that if something is not working right, we do it better. Ministers in Northern Ireland would be more than happy to be involved.
	I want to highlight some of the elements that must form the foundations of any autism legislation and that have been implemented in Northern Ireland. The Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, unlike the English autism
	legislation, is equality driven and lifelong focused. We look at the child at an early stage and as they work their way through school and into jobs, which each of the Members who have spoken have mentioned.
	The 2011 Act amends the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to include those with social communication disabilities such as autism. That supersedes the Equality Act 2010 in Great Britain, which provides recognition only in guidance, not in the primary legislation. We have taken that a stage further. The 2011 Act changes the definition of disability in the 1995 Act so that the entitlement to services of people with autism is no longer measured solely by their IQ or their physical ability. Some of the things that a child or young person is asked, such as whether they can walk from A to B, are ridiculous when trying to assess disability. Access to services and benefits also now relates to a person’s level of social and communication impairment or function.
	Previously, disability living allowance was disallowed because autism did not clearly fit into the protections and the definition in the 1995 Act. That is no longer the case. I suspect that all Members in the Chamber have fought DLA appeals for young people who have autism. Ten years ago, it was sometimes extremely difficult to explain to the DLA panel that a certain young fellow or girl needed more care and attention than their brother or sister who did not have autism. It is easier now, because there is a better understanding of autism. We have tried to address that issue in Northern Ireland.
	We have placed a duty on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to act as the lead Government body in producing, reviewing and implementing a cross-departmental strategy for autism. Currently, cross-departmental co-operation is only discretionary. However, we have a strategy in place that brings all the Government bodies together and ensures that they all focus on what it is important to do. We have placed a duty on all Departments to agree a data-collection system to calculate the current and future need for services for people with autism and their families. That helps us to plan for the long term.

Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any autism strategy should include respite care for the family?

Jim Shannon: Absolutely. Anyone who knows such families knows that that is critical. One just has to see the boisterousness of the young person and the distressed look of the mother to know that the mum just needs a bit of respite care to get a break for a wee while. That is an important factor that perhaps we have not mentioned. I thank the hon. Lady for raising it.
	In Northern Ireland, we have also placed a duty on the DHSSPS to detail clearly how the needs of families and carers are to be addressed. There is a clear directive in the strategy on the development of family support services. We have placed a duty on the Government of Northern Ireland to implement an effective autism awareness campaign, for example using information websites and poster campaigns. It is important that we take the five points of that strategy together.
	It is my belief that the rest of the UK should handle the issue of autism in a similar manner to Northern
	Ireland. I urge the Minister to interact with Ministers in Northern Ireland to exchange ideas, understand how our system works and find out how the legislation can be improved. If we can do that, we will have achieved a lot.
	I also believe that we should implore all those involved to look carefully at the work and outcome of the Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. When the Government consider their draft legislation, to which the hon. Member for South Swindon referred in his introductory remarks, I believe there is no better system, at least to start with, than that in Northern Ireland.
	To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Figures indicate that the number of children with autism is Northern Ireland is rising—as in the rest of the United Kingdom—and we sense the effect that is having on society and individuals. It also impacts on people’s financial circumstances as there is a drain on the moneys necessary to deal with this condition. We must prepare and set moneys aside for that purpose.
	We all know families who are affected by this issue, and they do not ask for too much or more than they are entitled to. We are being asked to give only what they need and what we can provide, which I believe is support. Above all, we need to help those children and families to have an acceptable quality of life. That has not yet been achieved, but hopefully it will be once the draft legislation is introduced.

Mark Williams: It is a privilege to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on persuading the Backbench Business Committee to allow it. Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I praise the hon. Members for South Swindon and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for their personal insights. Such insights are critical to the debate and warmly accepted by Members on all sides of the House.
	Following the hon. Member for Strangford, I want to bring a Welsh perspective to the debate. In one sense, the hon. Gentleman has usurped me. I was going to say that Wales is leading the way through the development of its autism strategy, but sadly it seems that Northern Ireland is doing that. I hesitate to say that, however, because this matter is too important for one-upmanship. Nevertheless, I agree with the tone of his remarks because there are useful pointers and experiences from Northern Ireland, Wales and, no doubt, from our friends in Scotland as well to share with the Minister.

Jim Shannon: As I said in my introduction, the Northern Ireland Assembly has a close relationship with the elected Assembly in Wales. There is a real partnership together and a way forward.

Mark Williams: The hon. Gentleman is right and I suspect that our mutual friends in Autism Cymru, which is based my constituency, and Autism Northern Ireland have given us a similar brief about the collaboration between those two groups. Sometimes devolution can be helpful to our colleagues in England if it involves sharing good practice. We do not always get it right, but in this instance we have good examples to share with the Minister today and, in thatspirit, I will explain
	some of those experiences. Like the hon. Member for Strangford, I can speak for my friends in Autism Cymru who would be more than happy to share some of their experiences with the Minister.
	The Celtic nations partnership, which is made up of colleagues from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who work together on these matters, has said:
	“Developing national autism strategies supported by ring-fenced Government funding for autism is proving vital to improve the lives of people with ASD, and their families.”
	Wales has had an all-age strategy for autism for four years. Since it started in 2008 some £12 million has been committed by the Welsh Assembly Government to the implementation of that strategy and, critically, to research into autism. Wales is the only nation with a national autism research centre, and it is based in Cardiff.
	All 22 Welsh local authorities have an autism spectrum disorder local lead, and some have specific leads for children as well as adults. A national co-ordinator sits in the Welsh Local Government Association, and a national ASD practice website gives examples and shares practice throughout Wales. In my part of Wales, services and information are provided in both English and Welsh. As part of that process, each local authority has a local stakeholder group, and we should not understate the significance of that. This is about service delivery, people’s experiences and parents talking about their children. As the hon. Member for South Swindon said at the start of this debate, this is not about ticking boxes. Meetings and engagement with stakeholders are important. Every one of those authorities has had a local action plan in place since 2009. They are being reviewed and renewed depending on local need.
	I hesitate to quote myself by saying that Wales is streets ahead, but I say that in the spirit of generosity to which I alluded at the beginning of my speech. The challenge is as great in Wales as it is in England, but we have the frameworks and structures in place to assist.

William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman take the point made by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Angela Watkinson) on the necessity of taking respite into consideration as part of an overall package of care?

Mark Williams: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the people he has met in his surgeries, and, as I have said, I have attended stakeholder meetings in Ceredigion. We have both heard from parents about the need for respite provision, so that they can recoup their energy and strength to be the parents they want to be.
	I have two concerns about the UK situation. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), the former Secretary of State for Wales, and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), have referred to Atos. That is an emerging situation. I should like to emphasise the difficulties encountered by many claimants with autism when dealing with the Department for Work and Pensions and other Departments. There are concerns that work capability assessments, which determine eligibility for employment and support allowance, fail at their core to recognise the difficulties that people with autism face when looking for work and accessing benefits.
	Communication difficulties can make face-to-face assessments very hard. People with autism can misunderstand questions and fail to pick up on inference and assumption—they might answer questions only in their most literal sense. Furthermore, interaction is a key problem with autism, so the condition does not lend itself well to a call centre culture. One constituent went without the benefits to which he was entitled for a long time because he simply could not face direct, blunt questions on the telephone without support. I was pleased that the initial work undertaken by Autism Cymru, which is based in Aberystwyth in my constituency, included going independently to Jobcentre Plus in the town to offer support and advice to the DWP staff who give advice to address some of the problems—I appreciate the complexity of doing so.
	I commend Autism Cymru for its work with police forces in Wales. Four or five years ago, it developed the ASD emergency card scheme. As we have heard, many individuals with autism have become involved in the criminal justice system as a consequence of their vulnerability or their social and communication difficulties. The idea, which was pioneered in north Wales and Dyfed-Powys and rolled out across Wales, is that somebody with autism produces a card when they come into contact with the emergency services. The card not only informs the emergency service that the person functions on the autistic spectrum, but offers pointers on how communication with them can be advanced.
	There are approximately 88,000 schoolchildren in England and 6,000 in Wales with autism. The majority are in mainstream schools. Therefore, every teacher—I used to be a teacher—should expect to teach a child who is on the autistic spectrum. They should also be ready to teach with, or have access to, the appropriate level of expertise. However, the National Autistic Society in Wales tells me that only 47% of parents were satisfied with the level of understanding of secondary school subject teachers. As we have heard, early diagnosis, assessment and intervention are critical. As a former primary schoolteacher—admittedly, it was some time ago now—I remain concerned, like the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, about the training available to class teachers.
	I have not been involved in the all-party group on autism, but I very much endorse its call for a lead teacher in every school with specific responsibility for ensuring equality of access for children with autism. That goes beyond the requirements of a special educational needs co-ordinator. The demands on SENCOs are immense enough without the complexities and range of challenges faced by working with autistic children.
	We need to give our teachers the support they need, and I am not convinced that we have done that. Anecdotally, I remember being summoned to the head teacher’s office to be told that a new girl would be joining my class and that she was autistic. I can in all honesty say, having been a class teacher for three or four years, that I had not experienced that in any other classroom. In my years of postgraduate training, I had never come across the term autistic. In fact, special needs education training in those times amounted to four or five hours in one afternoon. Teachers are often aware that they can be failing the children in their care. It is not necessarily their fault—the training needs to be available to support them.
	If the debate is characterised by anything, it is the need to raise awareness; awareness not only in Government agencies and education, and—I am pleased to report, like my friends in Northern Ireland—awareness of the progress in our countries as well. What I am sure we all agree on is that the lives of children and adults may only improve if society has a better understanding of the condition that, as we have heard, affects one in 100 children. Recent figures from the NHS Information Centre have confirmed a similar prevalence in adults.

Henry Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Williams: I am coming to my last sentence. Very quickly.

Henry Smith: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way just before his last sentence. Does he agree that the private sector also has a role to play in expanding autism awareness? I was delighted to learn only today that my local cinema, Cineworld, is working with the Dimensions social care charity to ensure that autism friendly films will be shown at that cinema. We need to spread awareness across all sectors of our society.

Mark Williams: The hon. Gentleman illustrates how the issue transcends everything. We could compartmentalise the debate in terms of education or, as I have, in terms of benefit issues. However, it crosses every aspect of life and we need that recognition. The hon. Member for South Swindon has done us a great favour in securing the debate and I look forward to hearing from the Government. I encourage them to carry on with the steps they are embarking on.

Catherine McKinnell: I welcome this debate. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on securing it and on giving such a powerful and insightful contribution in his opening speech. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have contributed to what has been a very high-quality debate. It is obvious that a lot of sincere dedication has gone into raising the profile of this issue and into fighting for support. It is good that we have the opportunity to acknowledge that, and to take stock of what more there is to do.
	As has been mentioned on a number of occasions, autistic spectrum conditions affect more than one in 100 people in the UK, and in some places more than one in 70, yet an understanding of the issues faced by those with the condition is still worryingly low. That lack of understanding puts major barriers in the way of gaining education, training or employment, or an independent life for those affected. That has an inevitable impact on families and carers, something set out passionately by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
	I am proud of the excellent Thomas Bewick school in my constituency. It provides a specialised education for children and young people with autistic spectrum conditions, and is housed in a superb modern building
	funded by the Building Schools for the Future initiative. On a visit, I saw the incredibly inspiring work that the teachers, teaching assistants and other support workers undertake, and the incredible nurturing that those children receive. The most recent Ofsted report found it provided a “good” education, but it has been graded “outstanding” for, among other things,
	“effectiveness of care, guidance and support”,
	with the sixth form rated as “outstandingly effective” across the board. It noted that the head teacher, Audrey Lindley, has
	“instilled passion and commitment in the staff team”,
	and that the parents of pupils were overwhelmingly positive about the school. I witnessed that for myself, talking to many of the parents.
	The school is also an important resource for the wider autism community, with parents from across the north-east region accessing the National Autistic Society’s regional information centre based at the school. A user of the centre recently told me:
	“My son is still in a mainstream school, but his Asperger’s syndrome has affected our whole family. The NAS information officer is knowledgeable, approachable and experienced. Her support has been invaluable as we have come to terms with his diagnosis and battled to get him the support he needs.”
	Again and again, we hear words such as “fighting” and “battling”. We have all acknowledged the battle that parents face, and we will, I hope, take steps to make that transition easier for families.
	With Newcastle City council facing cuts of £164 per person—more than 10 times more than in some wealthier local authorities—the continued funding and support for the school is a credit to council leaders. At the moment, that funding is not under threat, but across the country there are concerns about appropriate education for children with autism. That education has to begin in the early years. Clearly, language development in the early stages needs the proper support and provision, so that signs of the condition can be picked up at the earliest stage. That provision has been ably provided by Sure Start, among others, which is why it is more important than ever to fight for resources and to ensure that local authorities have what they need to keep these vital services open.
	There are concerns that no assurances have yet been given that the two-year grant awarded in 2011 by the Department for Education to the Autism Education Trust will be renewed. I do not know whether the Minister can comment on that. The grant funds a training programme to instruct and train 5,000 school staff in understanding and working with children with autism. As hon. Members have said, that understanding is vital, if things are to improve. The extra training is particularly important given the brevity of the training given to non-specialists trainee teachers. The vast majority of the 88,000 school-age children with autism in the UK are in mainstream schools, so good understanding and awareness among teachers is crucial to their success. However, 84% of respondents to the all-party group on autism’s recent survey said that teachers were not given enough training to teach and support children with autism effectively. That statistic will inevitably cause concern.
	The NAS has also called for a trained lead teacher on autism to be available in every school in order to co-ordinate
	services, inform other teachers and ensure that all students with autism have access to the support they need. That could be just the factor that allows a child to stay in a mainstream school, when that is the most suitable option. I hope that the Minister will tell the House how that provision can be improved. There are also concerns about access to independent special schools, when that is the most suitable option. As it stands, the children and families Bill will leave something of a loophole, which could prevent parents from stating a preference for an independent special school for their child—even if that is the only suitable school available in the local area—because of the lack of a clear legal distinction between mainstream independent schools and independent special schools. That is a major problem, and I would like to hear from the Minister today what the Government will do to address it.
	Once children with autism leave school, they still need support—a point that many hon. Members have addressed—yet the transition is not always well managed. That is why it gives me great pleasure that the Government have accepted the all-party autism group’s recommendation that support for young people with autism should continue uninterrupted until the age of 25. That should bring improvements, but as hon. Members have said, 25 should not be a cliff edge. Support needs to be ongoing for as long as those young people need it. Under the draft provisions, the local authority’s duties cease once a young person leaves school or further education—if they take up a training place, for example—and do not necessarily restart if they want to return to education. Ensuring continued support is vital for young people to make the transition to independent adulthood. The Bill should be amended to allow continued access to supported education under a specialised plan for people who leave education and then return, as well as for those who stay on.
	I again pay tribute to Thomas Bewick school, and to specialist and mainstream schools up and down the country that work tirelessly to give children with autism the best education and preparation for adult life. They do a huge amount, and although we can always do more to improve, refine and ensure access to the best educational support for every child, we pay particular tribute today to those making such efforts for children with autism.

Oliver Colvile: May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend—my very good friend—the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on securing this debate? Indeed, this situation is pretty unique, because in 1995, when we were both doing our parliamentary selection board, we ended up doing a debate together. He opened for the then governing side and I closed the debate, but I never imagined that, somewhere in the region of 17 years later, I would find myself re-enacting the whole thing—albeit in much more august company than some of the people who were there on that occasion.
	I initially became involved in the whole issue of autism in the 2010 general election, when I found myself receiving an enormous number of e-mails from people writing to me about it. I cannot say that I am particularly well informed about the subject, and I am sure that everybody else is much better informed—in fact I know
	so, because I have listened to a number of people in this debate—but I want to make one or two points. According to the National Autistic Society’s website, one in 100 people suffer from the condition. I am told that in Plymouth—which is obviously part of my constituency—there are an estimated 1,200 children who have some form of learning difficulty or are autistically challenged in one way or another. It is also interesting to note that the city council has absolutely no data whatever on those aged 18 to 25 who suffer from autism or Asperger’s.
	I am afraid I have now to tell the House an incredibly sad story, which I was deeply shocked by. In early September, one of my constituents came to see me at one of my weekly surgeries to talk about her 19-year-old daughter, who suffers from pathological demand avoidance, which I understand is known as PDA. It appears that in May the police were called to Marlborough street, in a deprived part of Devonport, as her daughter was behaving in a very aggressive manner. She was arrested, heavily restrained, completely stripped and put into a body suit. I find this all quite depressing. When her mother went to Charles Cross police station, which is the busiest police station in the whole of England and second only to Glasgow in the United Kingdom, she found her daughter in quite a state. She was banging her head against the wall.
	My constituent was very concerned at the treatment that her daughter had received, and she duly wrote to the authorities, including the police and Plymouth city council, to ask why her daughter had not been sectioned under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, as amended by the Mental Health Act 2007. The team manager of the city council’s children’s disability team replied, saying that
	“the 2007 Mental Health Act makes provision in relation to mentally disordered persons found in a public place and that they may be removed to a place of safety and may be detained for up to 72 hours to be examined by a registered medical practitioner”.
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) suggested that we should perhaps ensure that people with autism or Asperger’s, whether they are teenagers or older, carry some form of identity card so that the police know who they are dealing with, rather than behaving in what I have to say can be a slightly offhand manner. I am sure that the police were doing everything they could, and in the best possible way, but this is none the less a shocking story. We need to ensure that our police officers are better and more regularly trained. We also need to ensure that mental health nurses are on duty in police stations when these kinds of issues arise, so that they can carry out an appropriate assessment.
	The House last debated mental health on the Floor of this Chamber in September, during the debate on the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell). In the debate, I talked about how I had learned, during a recent visit to Charles Cross police station, that people with mental health problems quite regularly had to be put into the cells, rather than being sent up to the Glenbourne unit at Derriford hospital in line with section 136 of the Mental Health Act. Of course I am not suggesting that everyone with mental health problems who ends up in that police station suffers from autism or Asperger’s; I am simply making this point.
	It appears that the constituency case that I have described was not a unique incident. My local police
	feel that this is an inappropriate way to deal with these people, and that it can in some cases make matters worse. I also understand that the custody officers have not received the necessary training. They would welcome a qualified mental health nurse being attached to their unit.
	The team manager of the council’s children’s disability team also said:
	“Police Officers regularly deal with violent and aggressive people and it is common for some of these people to suffer from a variety of conditions including autism.”
	He added that there was no standard practice for dealing for dealing with young adults who suffer with autism, and that each situation had to be handled by the police as they saw fit.
	On 6 September, in the wake of my constituent coming to see me, I asked the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), what training police officers receive on dealing with people with mental health issues. He replied that, on joining the police, all officers undertook a two-year initial police learning and development programme. However, the training does not appear to continue on a regular basis thereafter. On that programme, police officers and police community support officers are provided with training in dealing with people who are vulnerable.
	I understand that the authorities are now taking action to provide the facilities that are needed in Plymouth. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the city council, the local police and Plymouth’s health managers for listening to my pleas during the September debate and for taking action. In the run-up to today’s debate, I was contacted by the National Autistic Society’s public affairs people, who told me that they too were pressing for more training for our police officers. I hope that that request will be taken on board.
	I congratulate the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). He is not a member of my political party, but when he spoke on BBC Radio 4’s “The World this Weekend”, he said that he was on a learning curve on this issue, and any politician who can admit to that deserves to be listened to. There was an issue, as some may have heard, about an 11-year-old child who ended up being taken into a custody suite, and the Health Minister said that there has to be much more co-ordination of health services, police and local authorities so that they work much more closely together. I agree with him that there are some limited circumstances in which a youngster, perhaps for their own safety, has to be placed somewhere, but this has to be the absolute exception rather than the rule. We need to ensure that they are put into the right places for youngsters of that age—not necessarily into an adult custody suite. Although it may be the case that this practice has always happened—that it has always been this way—frankly, I do not think it should be allowed to carry on. Earlier this year, the Minister said that £34 million was being spent over the four years to 2014-15 on better mental health care for our children and young people. I think that is very important.
	Finally, I am aware that many parents who have autistic children—they may be teenagers, but they may also be in their 20s and 30s—and who are now retired
	are very worried about the provision that is going to be made when they are no longer there to take care of their children. We must certainly try to ensure that we do not just ignore those autistic people and say, “I’m sorry, but you’re now an adult, so you should be able to cope for yourself.” I am afraid that that is not the case.
	Those people who care for their children with Asperger’s or autism are, I think, fantastically good carers, and they need to be rewarded in a fundamentally important way, but we need to make sure that they also realise that there is help for them. Some large teenagers and those who are a bit older can, unfortunately, just sit on their parents, which I think can be quite intimidating.
	I very much welcome the call for a more joined-up approach and greater co-ordination between the authorities, such as our health services and our police, but we also have to ensure that there is a system in place to look after these autistic adults for all their lives, not just for when they are teenagers and youngsters.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am looking to start the winding-up speeches at 6.30 pm.

Penny Mordaunt: I, too, wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who has been a champion for people with autism and their families. I thank him for the opportunity he has given us to raise issues of great importance to our constituents. His debate is timely, not just because of the anniversary mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), but because the Palace of Westminster is being visited today by PAWS—Parents Autism Workshops and Support—which was set up by Dogs for the Disabled to bring together parents and carers of children with autism to share their experiences and explore the helping potential that a dog might have within their family. I pay tribute to its work and to the work of all the volunteers, whether they be bipeds or quadrupeds.
	High special educational needs are well catered for in my area, but middle to low need provision is much more patchy. Autism, Asperger’s, pragmatic language disorders and dyslexia make up a huge amount of my casework. I have huge admiration for the parents who come to my surgeries and are fighting for their children against a system that sets their kids up repeatedly to fail before any help is at hand. The daughter of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon is lucky to have him as her dad, as we all know that he has skills and is able to make the case against a local authority or other agency. Many of the parents we deal with are not similarly equipped, so it is great that we are speaking up for them.
	Let me touch on some of the main challenges that parents present to me in my surgeries, many of them echoed in previous speeches. The first is getting a statement. It takes a huge amount of time, as the process is not synchronised with the school year or other events going on in the child’s life. We need a much more pragmatic and flexible approach to the evidence we gather. The process of getting a statement sometimes seems to be an
	excuse for doing nothing in the meantime. Considering that it can take 12 months or more in some cases, I think that is a scandal.
	Secondly, there is a huge lack of information for parents out there. Local education authorities are supposed to publicise provision regardless of the sector in which it sits, but they certainly not do that in all cases. Often parents who are trying to establish what are the best options for their child will receive a letter from the LEA saying merely that their needs will be taken care of by school action plus. When they try to find out what that actually means—what practical stuff will be done, by whom and where—the only words that keep being sent back to them are “school action plus”.
	Parents do not have enough clout. It does not matter what a tribunal says or whether they win an appeal, because too many local education authorities are still refusing to act. They have no say in budgets, and we have already discussed at length the problems of transition post-16 and post-18. This is not just a nightmare for the children and their families; it is also a really poor use of the education budget. A young boy in my constituency who should now be in his GCSE year has never obtained a secondary school place. A travel grant would have sorted that out, and it would have been peanuts in comparison with the cost of the interventions that will have to be made in that young man’s life further down the road.
	My office has done a lot of work on cost. When we were fighting to get children the school places that they needed—we dealt with many cases—we set up a bursary scheme, thanks to the generosity of some local charities and London livery companies. In one case, we paid for the first two years of a young girl’s secondary school education. We worked out that there was an £180 difference between the per-pupil cost of sending her to the mainstream school to which the LEA wanted to send her for the remaining three years of her education and the cost of sending her to the independent school, which was the only school in the area that could cater for her special educational needs. That is a scandal in itself, but we then submitted a freedom of information request which established that the amount that the LEA had spent on the legal fees and officer time involved in the fight against sending the girl to the school to which her parents had wanted to send her outweighed the cost of sending her there in the first place many times over.
	I am very pleased about the reforms that the Government are introducing. They address all the points that I have raised, they are long overdue, and I am sure that they will resolve many cases. However, I am still sceptical, and I hope that the Minister will understand why. I am not sure that we shall be able to get all LEAs to act, and to embrace those reforms. We know from our experience with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the field of health care that the setting out of a clear vision of what people should have, and a constitution that enshrines what they are entitled to, is no guarantee that they will actually get it.
	Perhaps the Minister will say whether he would be interested in looking at some of the cases with which I have been dealing. I think that they are very enlightening. Perhaps he will also say whether, if the education reforms are ignored, he will boot some of the LEAs up the backside when they consistently fail to do the right thing by our children.

Sharon Hodgson: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr. Speaker, given your keen interest and great work in this particular area of policy.
	Let me begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). I congratulate him not just on securing this important debate but, more widely, on the work that he has done, and continues to do, in raising the parliamentary profile of autism spectrum disorders through his excellent chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on autism. His personal testimony today, when he spoke as a parent, was particularly powerful. As a parent of a child with social educational needs, I could certainly identify with it, as, I am sure, could other Members in the same position. He is, of course, ably assisted in his stewardship of that very active all-party group by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who also gave powerful personal testimony of his experiences as a parent.
	In my capacity as a shadow Minister, I was delighted to be asked to take part in the all-party group’s review of education for children and young people with autism. Sadly, my time slot for giving evidence was severely curtailed because the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), substantially overran in making her contribution—as, I have to say, was her habit. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his post, and I promise that I will not do that to him today.
	The all-party group’s review took place at about the same time as the Labour party’s review of SEN policy, which I led. The all-party group was assisted in its work by the National Autistic Society, and we on the Labour panel were ably assisted in our review by a young man called Andrew Rhodes, who was one of the NAS young ambassadors, and who I am sure is watching our debate today.
	I have read the all-party group’s report and there is clearly a lot of common ground between our reviews, particularly on the need to support young people on the autism spectrum or who have other special educational needs in their transition into adulthood and helping those who, given the right support and opportunities, are capable of working.
	The main statistic on which the National Autistic Society hung its “undiscovered workforce” campaign was that fewer than a quarter of people with autism are in work, with just 15% working full time, but four out of five people with autism who are reliant on benefits want to work, and believe they can do so. I know from my constituency postbag that the Government are very keen on telling people they are fit to work when they clearly are not; my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) addressed that subject. There are also, however, young people who are desperate to get out there and work, yet who are often not given the right support to overcome the challenges they face. They may also face discrimination from employers, who see their disability rather than their abilities.
	There are, of course, exceptions to that rule. I had the privilege of visiting an organisation in Sunderland called Autism Works, which provides job opportunities and career guidance as well as support for young autistic
	people in the local area. It provides a safe environment, where staff are confident about dealing with the changes in behaviour of some of the young people who work there. Chris Mitchell, who is on the spectrum himself, and the rest of the staff were keen to stress that, given the right attitudes and a degree of flexibility from colleagues and line managers, those young people can be a real asset to lots of organisations.
	As the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said in her customary well-informed speech, people on the spectrum are often particularly skilled in a number of areas, such as computers and science, which are highly valued in the modern work force, as well as repetitive tasks such as those the right hon. Lady highlighted. I am sure that many organisations are beginning to realise that—thanks in no small part to the work the NAS did as part of its “undiscovered workforce” campaign, as well as the excellent campaigns Members of this House have led over many years, including the first one I was involved in, as a signatory to the right hon. Lady’s private Member’s Bill, which has now become the Autism Act 2009. I am sure its provisions are making a real difference to the lives of young people and adults with autism.
	I would like the Minister to say how the Government will support young autistic people into work, and how his Department, as well as the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Cabinet Office, can encourage employers, including the public sector, to look beyond the outward manifestations of conditions such as autism, and not deny so many people the opportunity to prove that they can be a valued part of their organisation.
	Other issues with the transition to adulthood were discussed in an excellent Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, to which the Minister responded. Concerns focused particularly on opportunities for further education and training, and on young people on the autism spectrum having the same opportunities as other young people, which other hon. Members have mentioned.
	In the time available, I want to consider the experiences that arise earlier than that and to talk about the school journey, which is ultimately the main determinant of a young person’s options at 16, 18, or 25. Another recommendation in the all-party group’s report that chimed with what came out of my review of SEN policy more widely concerned the need for teachers to know about high incidence special educational needs and disabilities, including ASDs, and to be equipped with the skills to adapt their teaching to get through to young people and manage certain behaviours. The issue has come up time and again while I have held this brief, and not just while I was conducting the review. It was also raised in a number of speeches from Members on both sides of the House today.
	One in five young people is identified as having an SEND, so in every class there is likely to be at least a handful of people who require extra support. That means that every single teacher is a teacher of SEND pupils, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) highlighted powerfully from his personal experience. Not every teacher is given the skills to allow them to be a good teacher of SEN pupils, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine
	McKinnell) said in her thoughtful speech. If we expect our teachers to be good teachers for every child in their class, as we should and we do, we must give them the skills and knowledge they need to live up to that expectation.
	We are therefore considering how we can ensure that every new teacher undertakes a minimum module on SEND as a mandatory part of their initial training—not an optional part, as it is at the moment. It will cover identifying and adapting teaching for high incidence conditions and managing sometimes challenging behaviour in the classroom. We are also considering saying to schools that they need to give due prominence to special educational needs such as autism in their continuous professional development strategies. One in-service training day a year could be given over to promoting good practice on inclusive teaching, sharing best practice and experience, and refreshing knowledge on SEND. One in five of the training days for the one in five pupils with SEND seems fair to me.
	Our plans are not about creating specialists, although some might decide they want to go on and do that. We certainly need specialists at a local level to drive improvements across a council area. They are about giving every teacher the best possible chance of being able to teach the class in front of them.
	I also want to consider how to raise the status of SENCOs, which we heard about today. We need to look to them to lead and improve practice in their schools. We want the best teachers to aspire to take on the role, but anecdotal evidence suggests that that is not always the case. By raising their status, for example by saying that SENCOs should be part of the senior management team within a school, I believe we can positively influence the choice of individual to perform the role, incentivise good teachers to work towards becoming a SENCO and increase the clout they have in schools to drive improvements. I think that the combination of these measures will vastly increase the quality of provision for children and young people in mainstream settings.
	Of course, there will be children and young people on the extreme end of the spectrum for whom mainstream classrooms will not at the moment be the best place for them to be educated. In many such cases parents look to the specialist expertise and facilities in our non-maintained and independent special school sector, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde spoke about movingly from his own experience. A major concern is that although the draft clauses in the Bill provide for non-maintained schools to be named on an education, health and care plan, they do not extend the same provisions to independent special schools, in which about 8,000 children and young people are currently placed. I believe that is because of concerns in the Department about how to define an independent special school, but in a written answer to me the Minister responsible for education and child care, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), stated that no work had been undertaken to try to devise one. The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), had the opportunity to address these concerns at the Select Committee hearing a couple of weeks ago, but did not do so. I therefore give him the opportunity today to set people’s minds at rest. I urge him to devise a designation or approval system for
	independent special schools, so that they can continue to provide the excellent support that 8,000 families currently rely on.
	One aspect that is not always discussed when we debate provision for children and young people with additional needs is the needs, and indeed the competencies, of the wider family. This was powerfully expressed by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his contribution. All hon. Members who have come along to this debate will probably know from personal experience, as we heard so movingly on a number of occasions today, or from constituency cases that having a child with a special educational need or disability, particularly where that manifests itself in challenging or aggressive behaviour, as in some cases of Asperger’s or severe autism, such as in the second case that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) shared with the House today, can be extremely stressful for parents, siblings and other family members, and cause a number of problems, such as mental and physical health issues, or the inability to stay in or perhaps to take up work.
	Supporting a child’s family to understand how to cope with and cater for the child’s SEN or disability is often the most cost-effective intervention, and should be encouraged, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) said eloquently in her speech. Early intervention in such cases saves money, whereas over-estimating a family’s ability to support a child can be detrimental to all concerned. It can aggravate certain problems, negate efforts and resources spent elsewhere, contribute towards family breakdown, and increase the likelihood of the care system being involved.
	We brought in short breaks, which can help families immensely, as we heard, and I welcome the Government’s continued support for them. But as important and valued as they are, in the end they are just that—short breaks, in what can be and usually is a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week caring role. When all the professionals who we are promised will come together to draw up the education, health and care plans, it would surely be an effective use of their time together in one room to consider the needs of the whole family, rather than just the child as an individual.
	That would mean assessing the family’s resilience and ability to cope, which differs from family to family; providing or recommending support specifically for family members, where appropriate; and if there are siblings who are also in education, ensuring that their school gives them support to overcome the unique challenges that they may face at home, whether that is just the fact that they do not have a quiet place to do their homework, or the fact that they are fulfilling a caring role themselves and do not have the time or energy to do their homework.
	I end my remarks by praising the hon. Member for South Swindon again for securing this important debate, which has been an excellent opportunity for hon. Members to emphasise the priority that we all place on improving outcomes for children and adults with autism. There will be many disagreements along the way, I am sure, but Labour will strive to work with the Government and all parties to ensure that the children and families Bill is the best Bill it can be, and that it will deliver real, positive change to provision for autistic young people and their families.

Edward Timpson: This has indeed been a truly excellent debate. I join all those in the Chamber today in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) on securing so much time in the main Chamber for what we all agree is a very important subject. As the parent of a child with autism, whom I was privileged to meet last week, my hon. Friend has championed the cause of all children and young people who are on the autistic spectrum with such diligence, passion and vocation. It is a testament to him that in his constituency the Swindon SEN Network is proving to be a real help to many children. I am pleased to be able to pay such a heavy tribute to him.
	I should also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) for her work. She was instrumental—indeed, she played a pivotal role—in getting the landmark Autism Act 2009 on to the statute book. The impact of that Act continues to resonate to this day. I also pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for your work to make many more people aware of the plight of young people with autism. I am pleased to learn that, in Baroness Browning, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I have a mutual friend—not something I ever expected—and that we are both benefiting from her vast experience. Finally, I join others in praising the work of the all-party group on autism, its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, and all the officers here today.
	I thank all hon. Members who have contributed so constructively to the debate. It is heartening to hear that there is strong cross-party support for the general thrust and direction of our reforms. I shall endeavour to cover as many of the points made in the debate as I can, but if fail to do so in the short time available to me, I shall of course answer in writing to the hon. Members who made them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon spoke about his personal experience. He explained how he and his family had been through the mill because the system had not worked and how, like many parents, he felt that there was an obsession with process and categorisation, rather than with outcomes for children with autism. I shall try to answer that and many of the other points he made in the body of my speech.
	The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) also spoke from personal experience of bringing up a child with autism. His was a powerful and thoughtful speech, and I shall pick up one or two of the points he made now, because they are important. He talked about parents’ rights, and I intervened on the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington to clarify the point, which I also discussed with the Select Committee. The new system of education, health and care plans will carry through all the rights that parents have under the current statementing system—in fact, they will be extended in some circumstances. Young people will also have additional rights, such as to choose the type of further education establishment they attend, and we will also run pilots in which children have the right to take cases to tribunal. In no sense are we attempting to diminish the rights available to parents; instead, we are trying to enhance
	them. The legal force of an education, health and care plan will be the same as that of a statement. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.

Jonathan Reynolds: Parents across the country will be reassured by the Minister’s statement. What form does he believe that provision will take? Will it be made by amending the Bill, or through secondary legislation and regulations? If that is the case, perhaps members of the all-party group could be part of the process, to help make the legislation as effective as possible.

Edward Timpson: The legislation we have is in draft form and is undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny. We are listening carefully to all the concerns raised by parents and others to make sure that, as all speakers have said this afternoon, we get it right. Where it is not clear, we are happy to look and to make sure that it is absolutely clear. Of course, with the code of practice and regulation to come, we have the opportunity to set out in more detail how everything will hang together and play out on the ground for parents. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) say that the Opposition want to play a role in developing that.

Robert Buckland: Will my hon. Friend carefully consider the point I made about the need to make sure that the code of practice is enshrined in secondary legislation, so that there can be both certainty and, if and when it needs to change, flexibility, as it will be a living document?

Edward Timpson: I understand my hon. Friend’s point. He knows that the current code of practice, because of the parliamentary resolution required, has not been changed since 2001, and that creates anomalies—for example, it refers to agencies, such as the Learning and Skills Council, that no longer exist. To make it a living document, we need to be able to keep it up to date and in the proper form that reflects current practice. I shall consider his point and I am sure that we can take it up as the Bill goes through Parliament.
	I was trying to give some impression of the thrust of individual Members’ contributions. I want to address some of the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, particularly in relation to independent special schools and the ability of young people and parents to have a preference in their plan. That was also raised by the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). As I told the Education Committee, we are working closely with independent special schools to try to get over the hurdle of the legal difficulties and the definition. We hope to resolve those difficulties, because there is a growing consensus that we should have as much involvement with all the schools that parents might want to send their children to as the most appropriate places for them to be educated and to have the support they need. We are hopeful about resolving that, so I hope that reassures hon. Members that it is something we are working on. As I have said previously, we want to ensure that we get that right and do not end up with
	something that proves undeliverable, as that would not be in the best interests of the children we are trying to help.
	In relation to the adult autism strategy, I again pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham for the work she has done. The review is coming up next year, between March and October, and I want to re-emphasise the importance of a cross-departmental effort to ensure that the strategy develops in as co-ordinated a way as possible across Government and that it is not simply taken up by one or two Departments. I am happy to talk with her about how we can achieve that and ensure that every Department plays its part.
	Several Members, including my right hon. Friend, mentioned the work capability assessments and Atos. That is obviously something that has been running for some time. The third independent review of how the assessments are functioning has now been published by Professor Malcolm Harrington. It states that real progress on improving the assessment is
	“beginning to change positively in the best interests of the individual”.
	There are ongoing concerns, as hon. Members have mentioned, and I will be happy to write to the relevant Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions so that they can consider the points that have been raised. The health professionals recruited by Atos or Capita must demonstrate the appropriate skill in assessing people with conditions affecting mental health and intellectual and cognitive functions, and that includes taking into account their history and observing their ability to perform relevant tasks. That should also include those with autism. I take on board the point that has been raised and am happy to share that with the relevant Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions.

Cheryl Gillan: Even during the course of this debate I have been tweeted by someone in Yorkshire who says that she is working with the Department for Work and Pensions on identifying hidden impairments. Will the Minister ensure that work is really co-ordinated across all Departments so that we maximise on this and do not consign people to the scrap heap because we have not had the right people in the right place making the right assessments?

Edward Timpson: I cannot resist offering my right hon. Friend the answer I gave earlier, which is that it is important that the Government work in a co-ordinated way across all Departments. Of course, I am sure that is something we can try to ensure through my correspondence with the Department for Work and Pensions.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington touched on a number of important issues in his contribution. It is good to hear that the trade union movement is stepping up to the plate and looking at the important role it can play in ensuring that autism is thought about carefully when the working environment is considered. On his point about appeals and whether there will be any dumbing down of the right to appeal through the tribunal process, we will in fact be widening the right to appeal. If he looks at clause 28 of the Bill, he will see that it is not just parents who will be able to appeal; young people over the compulsory school age with also
	be able to. As I iterated only a few moments ago, we are piloting the role children might be able to play in challenging any decisions made on their behalf.
	In relation to the restrictions on legal aid, the current arrangements will continue as before. I certainly remember that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon was instrumental in some of the elements that ensured that legal aid will continue in this area. Over and above that, it will also be available to young people if they decide to take any of these cases to tribunal.

John McDonnell: Another point that I raised related to clause 39 on the responsibility on the local authority to use its best endeavours, which replaces the obligation on it to implement the statement. Will there be any discussion or reappraisal of that?

Edward Timpson: No. The “best endeavours” provision relates to the school as opposed to the local authority, which will still have the duty that exists now. I am happy to put that in writing for the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that that clarifies his point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) told us about her visit to TreeHouse school, which I understand has just received an outstanding Ofsted inspection rating, so I congratulate it on that. She also told us about the great work that Squirrels residential unit in her constituency is doing, and about the importance of ensuring that those who turn 16 do not have their opportunities narrowed as a consequence of their reaching that age.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who decided that I might have some culinary skills that I did not know existed, invited me to look carefully at how the reforms on autism are playing out in Northern Ireland. I am happy to do that, both in relation to how they have worked well and to how we can perhaps learn some lessons where they have fallen short of the expectations that were placed in the legislation.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) for his contribution and for his invitation for me to look at what is happening with Autism Cymru and the all-age strategy for autism that has now been running for four years. His experience of teaching prior to coming into this House has clearly given us the benefit of his ability to be a strong contributor to the Bill as it moves forward, and I look forward to his future contributions.
	The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) told us about Thomas Bewick school in her constituency and the inspiring work that it is doing for children with autism. She asked about the work of the Autism Education Trust. For the past two years, the Department has grant-funded the AET to the tune of £1.2 million, but I am pleased to say that there is now a further opportunity for it to apply for the grant that we have offered for the next two years as part of our voluntary and community sector grant funding, as well as a further contract for work with children with autism. I hope that the AET will look at that and see that it could put in a strong bid that we will be able to consider.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) told us about a troubling case in his constituency and the importance of training
	police officers, which comes to the fore when they are dealing with people with mental health problems and those who may display behaviours which, if officers do not have awareness of the condition, may lead them to make a decision that is not based on the best interests of those individuals.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) told us about the parents autism workshops and support project, which I need to learn more about to hear about how it is helping many young people in a very innovative way. She asked whether I would like to hear more about the cases that she has raised. Yes, please; we are still at a listening stage in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, and anything that can enhance my knowledge and understanding of the effect of the current system on parents and young people can only help to ensure that we get the whole Bill right throughout its passage and into the implementation stage.
	I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West for her welcome invitation, as I see it, to work closely and collaboratively in trying to ensure that we get the Bill into the best possible state that it can be so as to help and benefit as many young people and children as possible all the way through from the ages of 0 to 25, as the new reforms will. I look forward to those discussions as we move forward. She is right that young people with autism are a huge asset to our society; they enrich it, and we should always remember that. We should not forget that they want to make a positive contribution, and we should do everything we can to make sure that they can do just that.
	There are many more things that I wanted to say and I am sorry that I do not have more time to do so. I am pleased that the debate has managed to flush out many of the issues that are troubling parents as we move forward with the Bill, and that it has given me an opportunity to reflect on many of the excellent points made by Members across the House. As the Minister charged with reforming the SEN system, I am under no illusions about the importance of getting this right. I thank all Members for their excellent contributions and look forward to continuing our discussions as we move through the stages of the Bill. Finally, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon for his great work.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of autism.

Business without Debate

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Financial Management

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 11112/12 and Addendum, dated 8 June 2012, relating to a Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Court of Auditors: Synthesis of the Commission’s management achievements in 2011, and No. 11479/12, dated 15 June 2012, relating to European Court of Auditors’ Opinion No. 4/2012 on the Commission’s evaluation report on the Union’s finances based on results achieved established under
	Article 318 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; considers the Commission’s report to be disappointing, inadequate, and unfit for purpose; consequently welcomes the European Court of Auditors’ critical analysis of the report and the constructive suggestions for improvement; agrees that a thorough analysis of results achieved against planned outcomes would be a useful focus for future reports; considers that useful and timely information on transparency, accountability and quality of European Union spend is essential to facilitate a better understanding on behalf of Member States, the public and other institutions of the performance of the Commission’s management activities; agrees that a timely report is necessary to inform the annual Budgetary discharge process; and calls on the Government to make specific proposals which strengthen the independent external audit of the EU budget and programmes, improve procurement rules and ensure that experienced and qualified audit professionals implement an audit and inspection system geared to addressing risk and securing efficiency and added value in all EU expenditure.—
	(Greg 
	Hands
	.)
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Community Infrastructure Levy

That the draft Community infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.—(Greg  Hands .)
	Question agreed  to .
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Northern Ireland

That the draft District Electoral Areas Commissioner (Northern Ireland) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.—(Greg  Hands .)
	Question agreed  to .
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Disabled Persons

That the draft Disabled People’s Right to Control (Pilot Scheme) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 24 October, be approved.—(Greg  Hands .)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Nippers Nursery, Leicester

Jonathan Ashworth: I want to present a petition on behalf of almost 300 residents of the Leicester city area.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of staff and parents of Nippers Nursery, Saxon House, Leicester,
	Declares that on 30 November Nippers Nursery will be closed by HMRC and that the reason given is that there is a declining number of children attending; further that the Petitioners believe that this is simply not true and that Nippers Nursery is a valuable, viable and well-loved local nursery used by staff of HMRC and local parents alike.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty's Treasury to reverse the decision to close Nippers Nursery.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001134]

SERGEANT NIGHTINGALE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Greg  Hands .)

Julian Brazier: In raising the case of Sergeant Danny Nightingale, it is a huge pleasure to see so many hon. Friends and hon. Members present. Indeed, some of them are hon. and gallant Friends. It is a particular pleasure to see on the Government Front Bench my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—both of whom are extremely dedicated Ministers—and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who is, of course, the relevant constituency MP, but who, as a Minister in another Department, cannot take part in the debate.
	I want to make it clear that it is no part of my submission to suggest that special forces soldiers are in any way above or outside the law of the land. Instead, I shall argue that particular failings in this very hard case have led to a particular injustice. As a result, a dedicated and extremely brave man is in military detention, and his wife and small daughters face potential eviction from their family home, because they are unable to pay their mortgage.
	Military justice was consciously modelled on civilian criminal justice. Originally, 12 officers echoed the 12 householders of repute on a jury, although the number became more commonly five 100 years ago. In the past 20 years, under pressure from the European Court of Human Rights, the system has been turned on its head and today a judge advocate chairs the court with up to five regimental officers who are no longer allowed to ask direct questions. My particular concern with regard to Sergeant Nightingale’s case relates to a further problem resulting from the abandonment of the old military justice principle that the composition of the court should at least in part reflect any special circumstances of the prisoner wherever possible. For example, in an aviation case there should be at least one pilot on the court panel. In the case under discussion, nobody on the court panel had any connection to special forces, the relevance of which will emerge in a moment.
	The facts are as follows: Sergeant Danny Nightingale was presented with a Glock pistol in Baghdad in 2007 by grateful Iraqi colleagues. He returned early to this country from operations, accompanying the bodies of two comrades killed in action. A comrade packed his kit and it was returned to the UK under the supervision of the military police, who have a specific duty to check that there are no weapons in the equipment. The locked kit box sat in a cage that was also locked for two and a half years in his barracks. It was eventually moved, in its container, to the Army accommodation that Danny Nightingale shared with another sergeant.
	Meanwhile, in 2009, Danny collapsed on a marathon that he was doing for charity in south America, suffering from a tropical illness that damaged his brain, affecting his memory. In 2011, when he had somehow managed to talk his way back on to operations, now in Afghanistan, the police raided his military digs after a tip-off from the other sergeant’s wife, who was in dispute with her
	husband. During the search, the police uncovered the weapon belonging to Danny Nightingale, which was still in its container in a cupboard and a quantity of ammunition under his bed. I understand that the unit held an immediate weapons amnesty and that an embarrassingly large number of weapons turned up in the skip that was conveniently provided overnight.
	Most parts of the Army have been engaged in dangerous and often bloody operations. Where special forces are different from the rest of the Army is that they do not leave that regime on coming back to the UK. Typically, as was the case with Sergeant Nightingale, they remain on very short notice to move for long periods, which entails keeping live ammunition in their kit. They are, of course, subject to the same law and the same internal rules as other parts of the Army, but the pressure and temptation on tired, overstretched men to take weapons and kit containing live rounds back to their accommodation is of a different order of magnitude. It is clear from the article by Sergeant Nightingale’s gallant former commanding officer, Colonel Richard Williams MBE MC, that the amnesty revealed that a number of people in the regiment had got into bad habits under the extreme pressure of operational tours abroad and the high-readiness cycle at home.
	Let us look for a moment at the military equivalent of a public interest case, the service interest, which should be of interest to the Solicitor-General. We can split the narrative in half, with a break at the point when the weapon went outside the wire. It is undisputed that the weapon and ammunition came back under the supervision of others and sat for two and a half years in a locked cage in the base. Given the amnesty, surely no one could believe that that alone passed the service interest test, or even the public interest test. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has revealed outside this Chamber that when he was presented with a working sniper rifle in Northern Ireland, he put it in a safe place in a barracks and took two years to get around to making it legal.
	That leaves the second half of the process: the moving of Sergeant Nightingale’s kit and the depositing of it in his military digs a few months before he was redeployed. That occurred a long time after the incident in south America that had caused his brain damage, when he had somehow clawed his way back on to operations, dedicated soldier that he is.
	At the heart of the transcript of the trial is a remark by the judge advocate:
	“You say you forgot about it whilst it remained in your box in a cage. Whilst we accept that you gave little or no weight to it, we find it difficult to go on to accept it was out of your mind entirely. In 2009 you were involved in a very serious incident which resulted in serious injury, which we accept affected your memory to some extent. Nevertheless, mainly through your own determination, you had recovered sufficiently so that by October 2010 you were placed back on active service.”
	One would have thought that that would have scored some brownie points.
	Danny Nightingale has compelling medical evidence to show that his memory was severely impaired. Do we really believe that the second half of the offence—the transfer of the kit, en masse, to military digs after he had suffered the memory damage and when he was under huge service pressures—passes the service interest test? Is this what the military covenant is about? Does this
	amount to paying fair regard to the particular pressures of life in special forces and their effect on a man whose memory had been impaired and who had made his way back into action?
	In his testimony, DCI Barnes of West Mercia police said:
	“Apart from the unlawful possession no criminal intent had been established nor, more importantly, was it suspected...The two suspects—”
	I have not dealt with the other sergeant—
	“had fully co-operated with the investigation and provided detailed and frank accounts. Neither had any criminal record that might otherwise have influenced my decision-making process.”
	Before the trial, I am told that Danny Nightingale was threatened by the judge advocate, using powers under the new system, that if he did not plead guilty, he would face a five-year prison sentence. It was as though he seriously believed that this case did not involve exceptional circumstances as set out in law.
	Under pressure, Sergeant Nightingale pleaded guilty. Yesterday I visited him in military detention—Colchester is the one part of the military justice system that works really well. I found him subdued and saddened, but still with an impressive quiet strength that comes from a remarkable character. The judge advocate said in his reasons for sentence
	“you have an exemplary character…your offences come about primarily by way of your inaction.”
	That is one way of putting it. This is a man who has served bravely for 17 years—the bulk of that time in the special forces—risking his life for his country again and again. As a medic he invented a new dressing, known as the Nightingale dressing, that is used in the British and American special forces and extensively in the NHS. He has never claimed a penny for it.
	Sergeant Nightingale’s family are immensely grateful for the interest taken in this case by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and Members of this House. My hon. Friend the Solicitor-General has issued a statement, correctly stating that it would be improper for him to review a finished court case. I would be grateful if he would confirm whether, should an appeal be launched, it will be within his powers to discuss whether or not to oppose the appeal with the Service Prosecuting Authority. I urge him to review the service interest test for this case, and allow the planned appeal to go through unopposed.

Patrick Mercer: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) on securing this debate, and thank him for allowing me to speak. I have sat on and remanded men for courts martial. I have allowed men to seek trial by court martial and I respect and understand the system. I see that it is not a normal court of law; it is not a judge and jury per se, but rather a panel of brothers, sitting in judgment on another brother, or indeed sister. My whole experience of courts martial has been one of admiration. I understand that Sergeant Nightingale has pleaded guilty to the charges laid before him, and that he has borne himself with dignity. I understand that his crime is a serious one. Paragraph 2.7 of the court-martial
	sentencing guidance of October 2009 points to operational effectiveness. It states that the court martial must take into account what is in the best interests of the service.
	I have no doubt that, as Sergeant Nightingale has pleaded guilty, he expects some form of penalty to be imposed. I suggest, however, that that will operationally affect not just our special forces but every soldier, sailor, airman and Royal Marine who puts his or her life on the line for their country and understands that the country owes them a debt of honour. I ask my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General that, should an appeal be submitted, he will not seek to oppose it.

Julian Lewis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) for permission to take up a small slice of his time. This is the third occasion on which I have addressed this subject on the Floor of the House. Quite apart from the shocking individual circumstances that have brought as many as three dozen hon. Members to this House for an Adjournment debate—an exceptional outcome as I am sure you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker—one particularly disturbing part of this case has been the iniquitous effect of plea bargaining.
	This was a man who believed he was innocent. He did not wish to plead guilty but did so in a plea bargaining process that led him to believe he would be given a light sentence, rather than face a heavy sentence of five years’ imprisonment—presumably without the 50% discount one gets in civilian jails in this country—if he continued to plead innocent but was found guilty. As a result, he was convicted, but unaccountably sentenced to 18 months, which, without remission, is equivalent to a three-year sentence given to someone in civil society.
	I mentioned that I had raised the matter twice before on the Floor of the House. On the second occasion, I raised it with the Secretary of State for Justice, who wisely pointed out that, although it was outside the parameters of his normal area of responsibility, he would hope that a common-sense approach would be taken to such cases. He had the common sense to recommend common sense, which is what we are looking for from those on our Front Bench tonight. We are not looking for bone-headed rigidity, which can give not only military justice, but civil justice, an irreparably bad reputation in this country. When the appeal comes, it should not be opposed, and Sergeant Nightingale should be allowed to resume his career and his life with the honour he so richly deserves.

Simon Reevell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) for giving me the opportunity to speak.
	Earlier this year, the court martial appeal court confirmed that the Attorney-General has a supervisory role as far as the Service Prosecuting Authority and the Director of Service Prosecutions are concerned. Ironically, it did so in a case when an unrelated search discovered trophy items and the SPA went out of its way to select charges that would protect the defendant from a draconian sentence at the end of his trial. The Attorney-General enjoys those powers because he has authority over anybody who prosecutes on behalf of the Crown.
	Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have declared that I have practised in the military courts for 20 years.
	In light of the significant public concern regarding the circumstances in which Sergeant Nightingale was prosecuted, and given recent questions of judgment at the very top of the Service Prosecuting Authority—the contract of the Director of Service Prosecutions is not to be renewed—it would provide reassurance for all concerned if the Attorney-General reconsiders his decision of this morning not to conduct a review of the application of the service interest test. The decision to prosecute Sergeant Nightingale in respect of the Glock pistol has led to the debate and the circumstances we are discussing. The concern of a great many people is that, although on a simple analysis an offence may have been committed, the service interest was not properly considered before a decision was taken to mount the prosecution. If the Attorney-General takes the view that that is not so, all matters raised in the debate are for the court martial appeal court, but if his view is that the service interest test was not met, he would doubtless ensure that a view is taken by the prosecution not to oppose the conviction appeal in respect of the Glock pistol. The ammunition is perhaps a different matter, but the sentencing powers for that are different.
	There are wider concerns. There is suspicion among many that there has been a miscarriage of justice, but there is a wider undermining of the military justice system when there is public outrage, and when the public question whether an individual should ever have been prosecuted in the first place. The Attorney-General is entitled to deal with that as soon as he chooses.

Oliver Heald: The Attorney-General is unable to be in the House this evening owing to a long-standing prior speaking engagement elsewhere in the country. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) on securing the debate. He has a great interest in defence matters and is respected in the House—he serves with great distinction on the Select Committee on Defence. I thank him for his work. He spent a number of years serving in the Territorial Army, and I am happy to reply to the debate.
	In the light of public comments, it is understandable that colleagues are concerned. It is important that hon. Members know the facts. Sergeant Nightingale was charged with two offences: possession of a prohibited firearm, which is a serious offence, and possessing ammunition. At the hearing, he pleaded guilty to both offences. He was represented by a solicitor with considerable experience in this specialised field, and by an eminent Queen’s counsel.
	As has been said, in 2011 a search was conducted of a house rented by the military where Sergeant Nightingale was living. This was an ordinary house in an ordinary road. It followed an allegation made against another resident. During that search 336 rounds of live ammunition were found in a box under Sergeant Nightingale’s bed. In the wardrobe was a Glock self-loading pistol—a prohibited weapon—which is designed to discharge 9 mm bulleted cartridges from a spring-operated box-type magazine. There were three empty magazines. The gun,
	and the ammunition for it, made a serious, dangerous and fully functional weapon. He was away from the house on operations and the weapon was not secure.
	Sergeant Nightingale was interviewed by the police and explained that he had brought the pistol back on conclusion of operations in Iraq in 2007. He said that he had taken it from secured premises at his base to his home in January 2011. He accepted that he had obtained the ammunition in the course of his duties as a training officer and that he had not got around to handing it in, describing his administration and working practices as poor. It is right that he explained that the Glock came as a present from local nationals, that it was his intention to have it deactivated and mounted, and that he had not intended to keep the item in its present form.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend said that Sergeant Nightingale brought the pistol back from Iraq. He came back without his equipment, escorting the bodies of two comrades with his commanding officer, Colonel Richard Williams. His equipment came back separately—others packed it, under the supervision of the military police.

Oliver Heald: I was describing what he said in an interview. Of course, it is true—he made this clear and it was not disputed, as far as I am aware—that the property was moved from secure military circumstances to his home and that he was aware of that.
	On Sergeant Nightingale’s state of health, it is right that in October 2009 he was conducting a jungle marathon and suffered a brain injury. That was serious and it is good that he was able to make a recovery and was declared fit for duty. The court martial set out the key facts, which it took into account in sentencing. That is a public document and is on the judiciary website www.judiciary.gov.uk. I suggest that people read the whole of the court’s judgment. The judge advocate took into account the
	“very great service over the years”,
	and accepted a lot of what was said about the weapon and ammunition being kept in the mess and then moved to the home in January 2011, the point that my hon. Friend just made.
	The reasons for sentence refer to the potential for very great harm when military weapons, especially combined with suitable ammunition, are kept in insecure accommodation. The court considered that he
	“knew full well…that such items were never to be held insecurely at your home”.
	The reasons for sentence are set out. It is important to bear in mind that with a prohibited firearm, which this was, Parliament has said that there is a minimum term of five years’ imprisonment unless there are “exceptional circumstances”. The court found that there were exceptional circumstances and imposed the lesser sentence.
	We have an independent system of prosecution and trial, both for civilians and for members of the armed forces. The decision to prosecute was taken by the Service Prosecuting Authority. In deciding whether to prosecute, the SPA considers first whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction—clearly there was in this case, because there were full admissions and a plea of guilty followed—and secondly whether it is in the public interest and the service interest for that to happen.
	Parliament has decided that this offence is so serious that a minimum term of five years must be imposed, except in exceptional circumstances. The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that the public interest will favour a prosecution. That is what the code for prosecutors states. It is difficult to see how the prosecutor could ignore this strong message, sent by Parliament, underlining the seriousness of the offence.

Julian Lewis: Did the police not decide that they did not wish to see a prosecution because no criminal intent was involved? Why should the military authorities take a different view?

Oliver Heald: There is a protocol that decides where these cases are tried. The advantage from the serviceman’s point of view of being dealt with by court martial is that it often does not result in loss of rank or dismissal. In this case, the court martial said it hoped it would be possible, first, for the sergeant to keep his rank, and, secondly, that he would not be dismissed from the service. Had it wished, it could have recommended the loss of rank and service, but it did not. That was the decision.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) made a point about the role of the Attorney-General. In the case he referred to, it is true that the court said that if a judge was unhappy with a prosecution and felt it was not necessarily in the public interest, the judge could refer it and say, “Look, you should discuss this with the Attorney-General.” But that is at the beginning of the case, before a conviction. In a case such as this, where there has been a conviction and the court has moved to sentence, the only way of challenging the decision is for the person concerned to appeal. Under this system, the sentence in the court martial is made not just by the judge advocate but by the five serving officers on the board. They all have an equal vote. It is worth making the point that there was Army representation and that two of the five were warrant officers.

Simon Reevell: I have the advantage of having been in the court at the time. On the court martial appeal, the court said, “The Attorney-General has a supervisory role, an example of which would be”—and it then gave that example. It was not a restrictive role in the way that might have been suggested.

Oliver Heald: I have three minutes left, and superintendence is a complicated issue. There is statutory superintendence for the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, and there is a common law form of superintendence that applies to all prosecutions, but the Attorney-General cannot just say, “I’m stopping
	this prosecution.” The House would not want a situation where politicians can stop proceedings and where we move away from an independent prosecution service and an independent court system.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, I hold our armed forces in extremely high regard. They regularly put their lives at risk for our country, and we only recently remembered their sacrifice. Sergeant Nightingale has given great service over the years to the Army and the country, but the case was dealt with in accordance with the procedures and laws that Parliament has passed regarding the seriousness of weapons.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend, in view of his own military service—this will apply to other hon. Friends here today—will understand instinctively the need to maintain the security of weapons and ammunition. In this case, possession of the weapon was prohibited by law because of the very nature of the weapon. It was being held insecurely, together with a large quantity of live ammunition, in an ordinary house, on an ordinary road. The way to challenge the conviction or sentence is to follow the correct procedure, which is to appeal.

Julian Brazier: May I suggest that my hon. Friend focuses on the Llewellyn case in Cardiff court, from as recently as 2008, where the Crown Prosecution Service, with none of the same mitigating circumstances, decided not to pursue the individual concerned for the two firearms found in the house?

Oliver Heald: There are a whole range of circumstances in which cases can appear, but—

Julian Brazier: There is a service interest.

Oliver Heald: But the first point I would make is that this is a particular offence—that of possessing a prohibited weapon, which we have said as a Parliament is an extremely serious matter. There were exceptional circumstances in this case; this is an exceptional man. However, if we want to challenge the decision of a court once it has been made—not at the beginning, when deciding whether to prosecute, but when the court has found the man guilty and sentenced him to a period of detention in a military facility—then I am afraid that has to be an appeal. That is our process; that is what we do in this country. We do not have politicians telling the independent judiciary—or, indeed, the independent prosecuting authorities—what to do. Much as I have a great deal of sympathy and understand the situation with this officer, I personally do not think that we can go around breaking important rules of that sort in this country.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.